Hyper-masculinity strikes again

[Bob Hunter]

John Piper swats the hornets nest again. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscr...-what-he-said/

Hyper-masculinity and the role of men in the Church is a very hot topic.

Obviously, I feel strongly about the issue and have passionately expressed it here on NN. The 21st Century Church has a certain wussification factor that is hurting us and our ability to reach men (and women & children). But I refuse to endorse the extreme nature of Piper and Driscoll's remarks. It's heresy by overemphasis and a total overcorrection and overstatement of the problem. By that same token, I think it is irresponsible to be be dismissive and neglect the issue altogether.

A lot of discussion around the greek word for masculine in the N.T. which might be interesting to entertain. Perhaps the moderators will shift this over to theology, or maybe another thread can be started.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

From what I've read here (not all of his comments) Piper really does not point out anything that cannot also be attributed to a woman. There are some interesting comments from readers below the blog post. I especially agree that these discussions going on in the church by Piper, Driscoll and their ilk, are distractions from getting the real work of the gospel and kingdom building done, giving yet another reason for those outside the church to dismiss the church and not hear the message of eternal life. So far, this is pretty irrelevant for me and my people and, generally, does not seem to be an issue here in New England, or, at least, New Hampshire. That said, I appreciate that for some this is a very important and confusing conversation that must be dealt with and corrected.

[Todd Erickson]

so...to be feminine is to be irresponsible?

[John Kennedy]

One always wonders about the hyper-masculine, macho-macho, super he-man types if they're not attempting to compensate for some inner doubts. Down in 'hog'n hominy country' they call it 'whistlin' past the graveyard" (maybe "whistlin' Dixie past the graveyard" would be more accurate).
Basically Piper and his ilk are a tragic distraction from what the Church should be all about.

[Bob Hunter]

From what I've read here (not all of his comments) Piper really does not point out anything that cannot also be attributed to a woman. There are some interesting comments from readers below the blog post. I especially agree that these discussions going on in the church by Piper, Driscoll and their ilk, are distractions from getting the real work of the gospel and kingdom building done, giving yet another reason for those outside the church to dismiss the church and not hear the message of eternal life. So far, this is pretty irrelevant for me and my people and, generally, does not seem to be an issue here in New England, or, at least, New Hampshire. That said, I appreciate that for some this is a very important and confusing conversation that must be dealt with and corrected.

Oh I think it is an issue alright. Blogger Rachel Evans is assembling a massive response to these claims. Believe me, it strikes a chord with folks. Let's just say it has touched off a little bit of controversy over here on NN.

[John Kennedy]

Oh I think it is an issue alright. Blogger Rachel Evans is assembling a massive response to these claims. Believe me, it strikes a chord with folks. Let's just say it has touched off a little bit of controversy over here on NN.

Controversey doesn't necessarily equal validity.

[Bob Hunter]

One always wonders about the hyper-masculine, macho-macho, super he-man types if they're not attempting to compensate for some inner doubts. Down in 'hog'n hominy country' they call it 'whistlin' past the graveyard".

That can always be the case and not just with macho-male behavior.

I do resonate with the overall concern for a more masculine feel, I just would not go as far to say the Church as a whole should have a masculine feel to it. There is room for a variety of expressions within the Church. The concern is that the Church has become soft and feminine and there have been many studies that point to that. 21st Century lifestyles have not helped. A couple generations ago, men chopped wood, changed the oil in their car and mowed their own lawn. Today, you can buy chopped wood at walmart, get your oil changed at fast lube, and pay someone to mow your lawn (if you even have one). We're a pretty spoiled bunch John, the conveniences of the 21st Century have stolen much of our ambition. I'm not saying these things exclusively define manhood, but you get my point. It will probably sound old fashioned to some, but I see guys getting bent out of shape over a malfunctioning DVR, or slightly upset when they are stuck drinking a different brand of coffee (other than starbucks). I mean when you think about it, we build our lives around these conveniences and now they define us and control our emotions. It's almost like we are allergic to the discipline of simplicity and self-sacrifice. God help us.

[Wes Smith]

Bob,

Part of my take on Piper's material is that the overall emphases seems to be upon making sure that men are in charge of running the church, implementing the tough teachings and then taking responsibilities for whatever flack happens.

I'd be curious about how he and the other macho talkers do at things like you mentioned, Bob...mowing the lawn, changing the oil, chopping wood, etc.

My perception, and it is just that, is that not many physically macho guys enter full time ministry. This is an informal gathering of information based on my association with pastors and other church leaders over all my years in ministry. Most of my college Religion professors were of the intellectual, professorial, thick glasses types (though not all). Most of them would never be seen on a sports court of any kind. You can tell some about this issue by the number of guys who go do anything very physical on the free afternoons at Pastors' Retreats or who talk about their manly exploits in pastor gatherings. Also, when I've gone down the list of the athletes and robust outdoorsmen, it seems to me that very few of those type of guys enter full time ministry.

While I'm not very sympathetic to Piper's stuff, it does seem to me that the overall leadership of the Church has been through the thoughts and actions of the not-so-macho. How does that impact our message? How does that impact our appeal to the hardy folks who like to hunt, fish, motorcycle, hike in tough territory, overhaul engines, jump from airplanes, etc.? What happens when these type of people (both male and female) encounter the Church?

There is also a management issue suggested by this subject. And, I'll leave it there.

Friend,

Wes

[Bob Hunter]

Wes,

I met a very inspirational Nazarene layman yesterday. David Argabright is a contractor from Virginia who has led dozens of Work and Witness trips to South Asia. David cycled cross country last year to raise funds for Nazarene Child Development Centers (CDC). It's working, David speaks at different Churches and meets with people who can support Nazarene Compassionate Ministries. Our Church, Mesa First, is trying to raise all the funds for a new CDC in Indonesia. David is planning a 3rd bike trip from Nashville to Key West, 2012 miles in 2012. He must be approaching 60 years old and he is a total beast for God. Love it. You can find his information on FB: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000148357689

I also love what Tom Oord is doing this summer. The thousand mile hike sounds very challenging and inspirational. This is what I love about Tom, he is an intellectual heavyweight, but he is so down to earth.

[Tami Martin]

Bob,

Part of my take on Piper's material is that the overall emphases seems to be upon making sure that men are in charge of running the church, implementing the tough teachings and then taking responsibilities for whatever flack happens.

I'd be curious about how he and the other macho talkers do at things like you mentioned, Bob...mowing the lawn, changing the oil, chopping wood, etc.

My perception, and it is just that, is that not many physically macho guys enter full time ministry. This is an informal gathering of information based on my association with pastors and other church leaders over all my years in ministry. Most of my college Religion professors were of the intellectual, professorial, thick glasses types (though not all). Most of them would never be seen on a sports court of any kind. You can tell some about this issue by the number of guys who go do anything very physical on the free afternoons at Pastors' Retreats or who talk about their manly exploits in pastor gatherings. Also, when I've gone down the list of the athletes and robust outdoorsmen, it seems to me that very few of those type of guys enter full time ministry.

While I'm not very sympathetic to Piper's stuff, it does seem to me that the overall leadership of the Church has been through the thoughts and actions of the not-so-macho. How does that impact our message? How does that impact our appeal to the hardy folks who like to hunt, fish, motorcycle, hike in tough territory, overhaul engines, jump from airplanes, etc.? What happens when these type of people (both male and female) encounter the Church?

There is also a management issue suggested by this subject. And, I'll leave it there.

Friend,

Wes

Thank you for sharing this, Wes. I share your perception of the sorts of men who go into full time ministry. I suppose anyone can go to seminary or bible college but it takes a skill set to be an effective pastor/shepherd that is not found in a lot of men. Call it a special gifting or calling or whathaveyou, but the sort of man who is an effective listener, sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, able to communicate well with men and women and children, the sort of person who can share the love of Christ with a lost person...those are not often a part of the men who are busy out doing manly things (your outdoorsmen, your work-with-their-hands sorts).

I don't say this to slam either "type" of man. Just recognizing how those skill sets are usually packaged and which group it is that is responding to the call of full time ministry.

[Bob Hunter]

Thank you for sharing this, Wes. I share your perception of the sorts of men who go into full time ministry. I suppose anyone can go to seminary or bible college but it takes a skill set to be an effective pastor/shepherd that is not found in a lot of men. Call it a special gifting or calling or whathaveyou, but the sort of man who is an effective listener, sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, able to communicate well with men and women and children, the sort of person who can share the love of Christ with a lost person...those are not often a part of the men who are busy out doing manly things (your outdoorsmen, your work-with-their-hands sorts).

I don't say this to slam either "type" of man. Just recognizing how those skill sets are usually packaged and which group it is that is responding to the call of full time ministry.

Tami,

My current pastor, Ira Brown, has been at Mesa First for 17 years and led the Church to growth and health. He is a man's man, an accomplished athlete who drives a jeep and shoots guns. I did not choose this Church, my wife happened to have Ira as Youth Pastor nearly 30 years ago and because of the relationship she wanted to give it a try. He is very approachable and manly. His appeal to men doesn't surprise me one bit. Not saying men with other interests cannot be appealing and effective, ultimately we want Christ-like pastor regardless of what activities they choose to engage in. I do draw inspiration from Jesus who lived a fairly rugged way of life (understated) and practiced disciplines of simplicity, self-sacrifice and I'm sure he could swing a pretty mean hammer.

[Tami Martin]

Sure, Bob. There are exceptions. And I don't believe I suggested that I was sharing anything more than generalities. But I also find it interesting that your post (#9) highlights two men engaged in "ministry" that is NOT pastoral. There are a lot of "stereotypically female" skills needed to be a good pastor. If you can do those things while shootin' a gun or wrestlin' some livestock, great. Now you know what it means to be a woman and be all those things

[Bob Hunter]

Sure, Bob. There are exceptions. And I don't believe I suggested that I was sharing anything more than generalities. But I also find it interesting that your post (#9) highlights two men engaged in "ministry" that is NOT pastoral. There are a lot of "stereotypically female" skills needed to be a good pastor. If you can do those things while shootin' a gun or wrestlin' some livestock, great. Now you know what it means to be a woman and be all those things

I have a theory, it will probably be offensive, but here it goes... Nina Gunter has masculine appeal. She has a deep billowing voice that booms. She is passionate and bold. She doesn't strike me as the soft female type at all. She may be a sweet Grandma type at home, but when I hear her preach I feel like I'm getting body slammed by the Holy Spirit...it's kinda cool actually. She commands attention and speaks with such urgency. We typically don't expect this type of presentation from a female. Not saying what she does is bad at all (I urged a delegate to vote for her!), but let's just say she won over enough votes to get elected. Again, shoot me down and kick my butt all over the place, it's just a dumb theory and I won't take pains to defend it.

As I mentioned in other threads, there are limitations using generalities, but we cannot escape them altogether either.

[Rich Schmidt]

I have a theory, it will probably be offensive, but here it goes... Nina Gunter has masculine appeal. She has a deep billowing voice that booms. She is passionate and bold. She doesn't strike me as the soft female type at all. She may be a sweet Grandma type at home, but when I hear her preach I feel like I'm getting body slammed by the Holy Spirit...it's kinda cool actually. She commands attention and speaks with such urgency. We typically don't expect this type of presentation from a female. Not saying what she does is bad at all (I urged a delegate to vote for her!), but let's just say she won over enough votes to get elected. Again, shoot me down and kick my butt all over the place, it's just a dumb theory and I won't take pains to defend it.

As I mentioned in other threads, there are limitations using generalities, but we cannot escape them altogether either.

I think you're probably right... with "masculine" and "feminine" as traditionally defined.

I think those definitions are changing. And at the same time they're becoming less connected to gender. Which leaves the terms less and less useful.

[Bob Hunter]

I think you're probably right... with "masculine" and "feminine" as traditionally defined.

I think those definitions are changing. And at the same time they're becoming less connected to gender. Which leaves the terms less and less useful.

If I were the devil I would jumble them all up and confuse people as much as possible. I would take the respective gender roles and blur the lines beyond recognition.

[Tami Martin]

I think those definitions are changing. And at the same time they're becoming less connected to gender. Which leaves the terms less and less useful.

Yes!! There is less and less social stigma for women not all lining up for the home ec classes and choosing to identify themselves by the same narrow set of characteristics (whether they possess them or now). The same can be said for men. There is just less and less reason to claim we are something we are not. And as there is less societal pressure to conform to a certain narrow ideal of what is acceptable and what is not...some folks seem to embrace the change and others seem to be threatened.

[Tami Martin]

If I were the devil I would jumble them all up and confuse people as much as possible. I would take the respective gender roles and blur the lines beyond recognition.

I'd say that maybe the devil was the one who made them up in the first place

[Tami Martin]

I have a theory, it will probably be offensive, but here it goes... Nina Gunter has masculine appeal. She has a deep billowing voice that booms. She is passionate and bold. She doesn't strike me as the soft female type at all. She may be a sweet Grandma type at home, but when I hear her preach I feel like I'm getting body slammed by the Holy Spirit...it's kinda cool actually. She commands attention and speaks with such urgency. We typically don't expect this type of presentation from a female. Not saying what she does is bad at all (I urged a delegate to vote for her!), but let's just say she won over enough votes to get elected. Again, shoot me down and kick my butt all over the place, it's just a dumb theory and I won't take pains to defend it.

As I mentioned in other threads, there are limitations using generalities, but we cannot escape them altogether either.

I gotta figure out how to make all the quotes in one post...


Anyhow...your thoughts here made me think of something my dad said about a female preacher I really enjoyed. He said he was apeing masculine behavior in some vain attempt to be accepted as a preacher. He was very put off by her mannerisms and her voice. She was much like what you describe Dr. Gunter. Deeper voice. Bold and passionate. Commanding attention and speaking with both authority and urgency. I am still perplexed by his assessment, because when I watched this woman speak, I felt God prompting my heart to follow a similar path. Perplexed and very taken aback. Because I saw those traits as very similar to my own (when we're lacking in the choir, I fill in as tenor). Her mannerisms were like mine which are NOT like the girly-girls I knew. It really threw me to find a man who thought those traits were affected and not natural.

[Bob Hunter]

I'd say that maybe the devil was the one who made them up in the first place

I don't know what you mean by this. God created man and woman in His image. I can most certainly see the Devil trying to persuade men to alter their male organs to look more like a woman (and it is happening quite often). It's just like the devil to take something beautiful and distort it beyond recognition.

[Tami Martin]

I don't know what you mean by this. God created man and woman in His image. I can most certainly see the Devil trying to persuade men to alter their male organs to look more like a woman (and it is happening quite often). It's just like the devil to take something beautiful and distort it beyond recognition.

But you said "roles," Bob. Not body parts! If body parts = roles, then motherhood is the only role my gender has assigned to me. In that we are in complete agreement. It's all the rest of the culturally-conditioned stuff that is associated with "roles" that I usually object to.

[Bob Hunter]

But you said "roles," Bob. Not body parts! If body parts = roles, then motherhood is the only role my gender has assigned to me. In that we are in complete agreement. It's all the rest of the culturally-conditioned stuff that is associated with "roles" that I usually object to.

It's not all bad though Tami. We can personally object to stereotypes and gender biases, I have no problem with that. But I refuse to say that all generalizations are bad, wrong and ill-conceived. For example, it will always be my inclination to believe that a Church nursery would be better staffed with women than men. You won't convince me otherwise. I have no problem with men serving and have done so myself. But I don't know many pastors that will go out and actively seek a male nursery director and fill the schedule will all males. They might be capable and trustworthy. But come on folks, women as a whole are much better at cuddling and caring for the little ones. I'd much rather have my wife in there who can take care of more kids than 4 men combined. Just sayin we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended).

[Rich Schmidt]

If I were the devil I would jumble them all up and confuse people as much as possible. I would take the respective gender roles and blur the lines beyond recognition.

I'm not a big fan of "gender roles" and seem to think much like Tami on this one.

"Male" and "female" are biological. "Masculine" and "feminine" are social constructs and change through history. Just read Proverbs 31 and compare it to 1950's USA.

Those who champion women's ordination already believe that some socially-accepted "gender roles" need to be challenged, because God is happily ignoring/subverting them anyway.

[Bob Hunter]

I'm not a big fan of "gender roles" and seem to think much like Tami on this one.

"Male" and "female" are biological. "Masculine" and "feminine" are social constructs and change through history. Just read Proverbs 31 and compare it to 1950's USA.

Those who champion women's ordination already believe that some socially-accepted "gender roles" need to be challenged, because God is happily ignoring/subverting them anyway.

I think we need to consider that some of those social constructs need not be changed. This is where I'm both liberal and conservative at the same time. I'm liberal when things need to change, and conservative when they do not need to change. Would you staff your Church nursery with all men? Who is your goto person or nursery director? I think this does not need to change. Though you might throw a man in there just for grins, heck I've done it. I can change a diaper faster, but I suck at everything else and after 1 hour in the nursery, I am so done. Trust me, there some things women as a whole do soooooooooo much better than men. I don't think that needs to change, sorry I just don't.

[Rich Schmidt]

I think we need to consider that some of those social constructs need not be changed.

They're changing anyway, whether they "need" to or not.

This is where I'm both liberal and conservative at the same time. I'm liberal when things need to change, and conservative when they do not need to change. Would you staff your Church nursery with all men? Who is your goto person or nursery director? I think this does not need to change. Though you might throw a man in there just for grins, heck I've done it. I can change a diaper faster, but I suck at everything else and after 1 hour in the nursery, I am so done. Trust me, there some things women as a whole do soooooooooo much better than men. I don't think that needs to change, sorry I just don't.

I'm not really worried about who serves in the nursery. If a man volunteered for the job, I'd let him (provided he passed the screening). What if a man expressed a calling to nursery work, felt that he'd been gifted by God to work with young kids? Same thing.

What if a woman volunteered to preach? Felt called and gifted by God to serve in that capacity? What if those gifts were evident to those around her? In some churches, that door is shut due to their understanding of "God-given gender roles."

That's one of those issues that make me glad to have been raised in the Church of the Nazarene.

[Tami Martin]

It's not all bad though Tami. We can personally object to stereotypes and gender biases, I have no problem with that. But I refuse to say that all generalizations are bad, wrong and ill-conceived. For example, it will always be my inclination to believe that a Church nursery would be better staffed with women than men. You won't convince me otherwise. I have no problem with men serving and have done so myself. But I don't know many pastors that will go out and actively seek a male nursery director and fill the schedule will all males. They might be capable and trustworthy. But come on folks, women as a whole are much better at cuddling and caring for the little ones. I'd much rather have my wife in there who can take care of more kids than 4 men combined. Just sayin we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended).

I hear you Bob! And I agree...there are some men who have no business in the nursery. But so, too, are some women. Wouldn't it be great if we could just have the best nurturers, regardless of gender. You are right. Your nursery director will probably be a woman. But I know a great many men who are wonderful cuddlers and can more reliably put a baby to sleep than I can. There probably won't be very many men jumping for this job but in the right environment (an environment that's free of gender stereotypes, for example) you might find a few who would love to do that job. And of church work days, if you don't specify "let's get some men to come in and..." you might be surprised to find a few women who enjoy swinging a hammer or putting up drywall.

[Bob Hunter]

They're changing anyway, whether they "need" to or not.



I'm not really worried about who serves in the nursery. If a man volunteered for the job, I'd let him (provided he passed the screening). What if a man expressed a calling to nursery work, felt that he'd been gifted by God to work with young kids? Same thing.

What if a woman volunteered to preach? Felt called and gifted by God to serve in that capacity? What if those gifts were evident to those around her? In some churches, that door is shut due to their understanding of "God-given gender roles."

That's one of those issues that make me glad to have been raised in the Church of the Nazarene.

Okay, so if your entire nursery gets staff with men because its not a problem and you have broken down the social structures (praise God), then I just wonder how those visiting Moms are going to feel about your church taking care of a little 18 month Sabrina when she sees all those scary men in the nursery and ends up crying her eyes out. I think we both know what will happen, they'll prolly end up in the service and disrupt your sermon

[Tami Martin]

Okay, so if your entire nursery gets staff with men because its not a problem and you have broken down the social structures (praise God), then I just wonder how those visiting Moms are going to feel about your church taking care of a little 18 month Sabrina when she sees all those scary men in the nursery and ends up crying her eyes out. I think we both know what will happen, they'll prolly end up in the service and disrupt your sermon

Bob - you crack me up!

In all seriousness, some kids these days have this really awesome new thing: a father! In real American homes, these new devices also put babies to sleep and sometimes comfort their crying daughters.

[Steven Burton]

Well there are known gender roles in the male and female which have com about due to recent psychology and biology studies. Such as women being able to do long term emotional care much better than men can. Where men are better at physical short term jobs. And I can vouch for the long term emotional care. I don't have it in me where as my wife on my word how do you do that. I would have shot them in the leg by now.

[Bob Hunter]

Well there are known gender roles in the male and female which have com about due to recent psychology and biology studies. Such as women being able to do long term emotional care much better than men can. Where men are better at physical short term jobs. And I can vouch for the long term emotional care. I don't have it in me where as my wife on my word how do you do that. I would have shot them in the leg by now.

Thanks, very true, there are many studies that point to the strengths of a each gender. We all know that. This is something that shouldn't change, but neither should we be overly prescriptive with it and disallow men to serve in the Church nursery or women to participate in a fishing derby sponsored by men's ministry. Just saying we have to be careful.

[Bob Hunter]

Bob - you crack me up!

In all seriousness, some kids these days have this really awesome new thing: a father! In real American homes, these new devices also put babies to sleep and sometimes comfort their crying daughters.

Yap...paid my dues. In fact, my brother's nanny quit last week, so he called me and asked me if I could watch my 16 month old Nephew. Of course, but he would much prefer his nanny over me. And even though I look like his Dad, he's not fooled.

[Rich Schmidt]

Thanks, very true, there are many studies that point to the strengths of a each gender. We all know that. This is something that shouldn't change,...

I don't think of these things as "should" or "shouldn't." If we're talking about objective, descriptive information, then it's just what "is."

... but neither should we be overly prescriptive with it and disallow men to serve in the Church nursery or women to participate in a fishing derby sponsored by men's ministry.

...or women to participate in church leadership (since that's what started this thread).

Just saying we have to be careful.

What dangers are you seeing that we need to be careful of? Just curious.

[Bob Hunter]

I don't think of these things as "should" or "shouldn't." If we're talking about objective, descriptive information, then it's just what "is."



...or women to participate in church leadership (since that's what started this thread).



What dangers are you seeing that we need to be careful of? Just curious.

No one ever questioned women in leadership, maybe Piper, but not me.

We have to be careful not throw out all social structures or label them as biased toward one gender or another when in fact they may not be.

[Rich Schmidt]

No one ever questioned women in leadership, maybe Piper, but not me.

Yes, I was referring to Piper's comments. Aren't his comments the reason for this thread's existence?

[Bob Hunter]

Yes, I was referring to Piper's comments. Aren't his comments the reason for this thread's existence?

Not really, I just wanted to start a thread to share my own views.

[Kami Tuenning]

Apparently our local Nazarene pastor agrees with Piper. Upon arriving 2 years ago, he let-go an associate female because the church could not afford her. Shortly thereafter hiring a male youth pastor (lasted 3 months) and a male associate pastor. His current series is titled: "Man-up!" a battle cry to see men rise up in the church and home

[Diane Likens]

Apparently our local Nazarene pastor agrees with Piper. Upon arriving 2 years ago, he let-go an associate female because the church could not afford her. Shortly thereafter hiring a male youth pastor (lasted 3 months) and a male associate pastor. His current series is titled: "Man-up!" a battle cry to see men rise up in the church and home

I'm afraid I'd be unable to attend a church that was being led in that direction.

[Kami Tuenning]

I'm afraid I'd be unable to attend a church that was being led in that direction.

Approximately 75% of the congregation agrees with you. They left and are thriving elsewhere. I don't understand why the denomination allows one person to take a congregation hostage with their agenda at the expense of souls and not intervene. Believe me, DS has been made aware of things.

[Rich Schmidt]

Approximately 75% of the congregation agrees with you. They left and are thriving elsewhere. I don't understand why the denomination allows one person to take a congregation hostage with their agenda at the expense of souls and not intervene. Believe me, DS has been made aware of things.

If 75% of the church left within a 2-year period, I doubt the DS (or the church board) saw it coming or had time to intervene. I'm not sure what the DS could do, anyway. It's the church board that needs to act, in a case like this.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Apparently our local Nazarene pastor agrees with Piper. Upon arriving 2 years ago, he let-go an associate female because the church could not afford her. Shortly thereafter hiring a male youth pastor (lasted 3 months) and a male associate pastor. His current series is titled: "Man-up!" a battle cry to see men rise up in the church and home

Approximately 75% of the congregation agrees with you. They left and are thriving elsewhere. I don't understand why the denomination allows one person to take a congregation hostage with their agenda at the expense of souls and not intervene. Believe me, DS has been made aware of things.

Letting go of an associate pastor due to finances and hiring two additional staff members would typically require involvement from the church board and/or finance committee. "Taking the congregation hostage" was most likely not a one man enterprise but rather the consensus from leaders in the church. I'm also curious as to why the pastor is still there if 75% of the congregation has left.

I find your comment in bold to be quite ironic given that you subscribe to Papal infallibility. Such a dodgma demands obedience to the Pope at all times, even in times of error. The second Vatican Council taught:

This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him. - "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", no. 25

Not sure it's the Nazarene congregation being held "hostage" here.

[Rich Schmidt]

I find your comment in bold to be quite ironic given that you subscribe to Papal infallibility. Such a dodgma demands obedience to the Pope at all times, despite being aware of papal errors in the past. For example, the second Vatican Council taught:

Let's not pick on Tami's Roman leanings, Marcus. In fact, her comments make more sense to me in light of them. She's looking for a higher-up in "the denomination" to step in and correct things with this pastor, when in our Nazarene polity it's the laypeople/church board who bear this responsibility and to whom the pastor is accountable. They are the ones who can call the DS in to meet with them and the pastor to review the pastor's behavior... if they feel they need the DS's help and don't just do it themselves.