It is not uncommon to hear Christian people speak of their dislike for large Churches. The question often asked is, “Is Red Mountain Community Church going to be a big Church?” While the exact answer to that question is only known by God, it is appropriate to wonder why anyone would imagine a healthy Church not becoming large. Though there might be fond memories of the early phases of a particular church’s history when “everybody knew everybody,” the desire to keep a church small argues against everything God intended a local church to be. In fact, it is not an overstatement at all to say that an obedient Church is a growing church. This is not to say that there are not seasons where numerical growth slows or even stops for a while. There might even be factors in a community that cause a church to shrink for a season. There could even be spiritual issues which cause a church to lose people. Such setbacks however will be of a temporary nature and as a healthy church is watched over a period of time it will recover, adapt and there will be numerical growth. This is as natural as it is for a healthy child to grow. We would expect nothing less.

The thing that is of particular interest about the growth of healthy churches is that it has been true of the church no matter what culture it is in and no matter how intense the opposition to it is. Where there has been health there has been growth, regardless of persecution, economics and politics.

None of this is to say that all church growth is good. Nor is it to say that numerical growth in itself should be pursued. It is certain that there have been instances where truth has been compromised in order to make churches attractive to more people. This is of course a shortsited strategy and even offensive to the Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ. We are to beware of the kind of popularity that comes with compromise of truth (Luke 6:26, John 15:19). To use gimmicks of various kinds just to set attendance records is to pursue the effect rather than the cause.

The fact remains however that there is a wealth of Biblical data that supports the idea that the church, the body of Christ, grows numerically when it is healthy, and therefore its local branches will do the same. This is the witness of prophecy, of logic, and of history.

Some of the least understood passages in the Old Testament are those which prophesy of a great movement of God that would come about through the Jews among non-Jews, or gentiles. Beginning with the promise to one man, Abraham, that “through you all nations of the earth will be blest,” we can see God’s intention to draw into His family a vast horde of people not related physically to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3). In the well known story of Jonah the wonder of the man in the fish often keeps us from reflecting on the fact that thousands of non-Jews came to repent before their creator (Jonah 3:5-10; 4:11). In the writings of the prophets a great movement among the gentiles is often predicted (Amos 9:11-12; Isaiah 42:6; 49:6, Acts 13:44- 49). They also revealed that this would come about because of the spiritual growth of God’s children and their involvement in ministry (Jeremiah 31:31-34 with Hebrews 8:8-12; Joel 2:28-32 with Acts 2:14-33). There would be a multiplication of teachers and leaders, the subsequent promulgation of truth, and then the natural numerical growth of the movement. So the Old Testament in effect projects the numerical growth of the church. It is quite clear from the witness of the Old Testament prophets that God would act to miraculously enhance the spiritual health of His people. This spiritual growth would produce numerical growth and expansion of the faith to all the peoples of the earth. It is a movement that continues through us today.

Besides this witness of prophecy, there is the witness of logic to the fact that a healthy church will grow numerically. If we look at what Christ charged church members with, it is hard to logically imagine numerical growth not occurring unless of course, they are unhealthy— disobedient to His commands. He commanded them to make disciples of all nations, by going to them, baptizing them, and teaching them. Whether they go into their neighborhoods or halfway around the globe, numerical growth will occur. It is only logical to believe that when the people of a church obey Christ’s commands, their church will grow numerically.

It is logically inconsistent to think that healthy Christians could not produce numerical growth as well when we read from the Scripture about the impact of the Holy Spirit on our lives. Jesus told His followers that the Holy Spirit would come upon them and they would be witnesses in their cities, their nation, and around the world (Acts 1:8). Again, a Church will grow numerically because of who indwells its members, unless they are being disobedient.

The witness of prophecy and the witness of logic are compelling, but there is no more dramatic a witness to the fact that healthy Churches grow than the witness of history. Where prophecy and logic might be passed over, it is hard to read the account of the early Church in the book of Acts and imagine God being pleased with those who would keep their Church small and comfortable. Over and over again in the book of Acts we see statements about numerical growth (Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7; 8:5-8). Again, numerical growth was never the focus of the effort, but it was the natural result of spiritual health and obedience to the will of God.

At Red Mountain Community Church, we expect numerical growth. To be sure, there will be seasons of decline, and seasons on the plateau, but overall there will be expansion and numerical growth. We do not aim at numerical growth. We do not use gimmicks to break records. We do aim at spiritual growth and health and we do seek to attract through a variety of means those who are being drawn by God to a deeper understanding of spiritual things. We seek to spark interest in our community. We seek to address areas of special need that people will identify with. We seek to offer contact with our church through non-threatening activities and events. None of these efforts are aimed at numerical growth. They are aimed at producing spiritual growth in needy people, and the result is that some people are attracted and enter into that spiritual growth process. The result is numerical growth. We anticipate and plan for this kind of growth because we have every intention of being obedient to our Lord.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

Everyone gets the blues. They’re a normal part of being alive emotionally, maybe even a part of being healthy. Depression is different. It drags on. You feel stuck. You become unmotivated. Things that once lifted your spirits do nothing for you. You feel isolated from God. You withdraw, where you once engaged. In some this withdrawal is quite pronounced, and they would sleep all day if they could. What causes depression? It is certain that we feel depressed because of body chemistry. However that does not necessarily tell us that the cause of our depression is chemical. Three factors about how God has made you help formulate an approach to depression in yourself or in those you love.

First, we are made for God. Depression was not his design for us, but became our experience as a result of separation from him. That doesn’t mean we can pray our way out of depression, but it does tell us that being right with God is part of the equation. Spiritual health may be the most important thing you strive for. It’s what we’re designed for.

Second, our moods are impacted by a series of chemical/electrical signals controlled by our brain. In response to what the senses of sight, hearing and touch take in, the brain generates signals that create appropriate emotional and physical reactions. This enables us to react in a way that is appropriate to our reality. That seems very straightforward and foolproof. However, at least two things can go wrong. Our brain sometimes interprets sensory data wrong. We have all experienced times when our brain sorted wrongly what the eye saw, or the ear heard, or the sense of touch felt. So, for example, we were frightened by thunder at night and crawled into bed with our parents. There are also situations in which the body just randomly overproduces or under produces a certain chemical and the result is an emotional and physical reaction that is chemically correct, but does not align with real life events. For our responses to be healthy, we must correctly perceive our surroundings, and our body chemistry must be correctly balanced.

The third factor in our understanding of depression is what we might call the great human mystery. We are referring to the fact that we are physical, emotional and spiritual beings rolled into one. We can have a very emotional experience that can lead to physiological symptoms. We can have a physical issue that leads to emotional symptoms. The physiological and emotional intertwine with the spiritual as well. Something can start out spiritual and progress to a string of emotional and physical maladies. We should never forget that though we might understand ourselves in terms of certain compartments neatly labeled and organized, the reality is that these are all inter-related. So, even though God’s Spirit is working in us, our experience of that is perceived and experienced by imperfect senses, processed by a fallen brain, colored by emotional scars, all in an imperfect body.

The following summarizes what can be said about depression.

• Depression can be caused by body chemistry. It can be that simple.
• Depression can be caused by our spiritual condition; us being incomplete spiritually or us being disobedient to God.
• Depression can be caused by emotional damage of some sort that needs to be sorted out.
• Depression can be caused by a combination of the previous three, and this is most often the case.

Remember, the key symptom of depression is that you get stuck emotionally so that you never move “up.” If you experience it, here is some practical advice for you.

1. You should approach it holistically. Explore possible physiological, emotional and spiritual causes.
2. Against all instincts, open yourself up to others. You must force yourself to do this even though it is the last thing you feel like doing.
3. Start with a visit to your doctor. Tell them plainly about the problem.
4. Talk with trusted friends. Ask them to pray with you and for you. Open up your life to them.
5. Visit a pastor. Be transparent about your spiritual life and the health of your walk with God.
6. On the advice of a pastor, visit a trained Christian counselor or Psychiatrist.
7. Do your assignments. Follow orders from doctors, suggestions from friends, and advice from counselors. Don’t just expect them to “fix” you.
8. Don’t give up. That will be your instinct!

Now, what about the use of medication? Christians often ask, “Is it right for me to take antidepressants?” Anti-depressants can be a valuable asset in dealing with your condition. If your issue happens to be a physiological one, medications are the only means by which you will gain help. Remember, if any other organ is your body was malfunctioning, you would pray for God’s healing, but you would not think of ignoring medical advice. Christians should feel free to take anti-depressants at a doctor’s direction and under their supervision. Self-medication is always a bad idea. At the same time, just taking medication may give you relief, but not really solve the problem. Remember how you are made. A physiological imbalance can be triggered by an emotional or spiritual issue. Because you are a fallen human being there are constant spiritual issues that need to be explored. Get help from others to explore them. Get help discerning possible emotional issues as well. There are quite likely emotional wounds festering within you as a result of living with fallen people in a fallen world. The truth carefully and gently applied will set you free from these things. Reach out for help in doing this.

In short, medication can be of significant value even if the root of your depression is not physiological. The relief of the symptoms can give you the mental outlook you need to face emotional and spiritual issues that have you stuck. God may bring you healing in time in these areas that allow you to set aside your medication. But this needs to be done with great care and the advice of your doctor. Always remember the old adage, “He who doctors himself has a fool for a patient.” Don’t medicate yourself and don’t un-medicate yourself.

There is another aspect of our humanity that relates to this area of depression. It is one that needs to be faced squarely. None of what we have said above negates the fact that we do have the ability and responsibility to manage, order and control our own lives. It seems that in our society we want to simply be happy, or be content, without cultivating the things that lead to happiness and contentment. The reality is that happiness and contentment are not “found” in the sense of suddenly being laid hold of through some experience. Both should be considered fruits of what is planted, cultivated and nurtured. So what is true is that we eat the fruit of what we sow and hoe. If we do not sow and hoe, no amount of prayer, or medication, or thrilling experience will bring us the fruit of contentment or happiness. Counseling, medication, prayer, and the support of others are useful to help us plant and cultivate the things which yield happiness and contentment. But we must structure into our lives foundational things. We must plant and cultivate that which in the end will fill our empty lives.

Our understanding of depression is growing, but there are still missing pieces of the puzzle. The medical community isolates and treats physiological causes of depression. Churches acknowledge this and seek in addition to treat spiritual and emotional causes of depression. Counselors seek to get at the roots of emotional causes of depression. The reality is that there are likely multiple factors at work in any depressed individual, all of which must be addressed. Do not lose hope if depression afflicts you. You must reach out.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

When members of Red Mountain Community Church pursue divorce, it breaks the heart of our Lord and it places the Church leadership in a very precarious position. People who experience marital difficulties need our support and they need to be reminded of things like God’s unwavering love for them, and His unconditional forgiveness of sin. At the same time God has spoken with clarity on the subject of marriage and divorce, and we as leaders are called on to teach His counsel to those under our charge. We want to be faithful in both caring for you and in teaching you. We want to support you, but in the right direction. The following observations will summarize for you how we view divorce. The intention is to communicate both Biblical truth on the subject and some practical realities of how it will be handled in our Church.

1. We believe that God’s original intention in marriage as recorded in Genesis 2 was that it be a loving, joyous, fulfilling, and permanent bond entered into by people who would live forever and do so together.
2. We believe that sin affected the permanence of this bond. Ever since the fall, marriage has been severed by physical death. In addition, once sin entered the human race, the relationship of marriage became particularly challenging for both men and women as recorded in Genesis 3, and marriages themselves began to fail. The result of sin was that marriage was no longer permanent in terms of eternity, and not even permanent in this life due to the adverse effects of sin on human behavior.
3. Due to this hardness of heart that humankind developed toward God, and because of that toward each other, all sorts of evils made their way into society. These evils range from murder, to false worship, to thievery, to broken relationships including divorce.
4. The Biblical data seems to clearly state that divorce is not a part of God’s original design, but that it came about due to sin and the hardened condition of the human heart. Therefore He says very appropriately that He hates it (Malachi 2:16), as He does all things that are a product of sin (Proverbs 6:16).
5. The Bible clearly states that a spouse cannot be divorced for any and every reason. It is permissible in only two circumstances.
• It is permitted in cases where a spouse is guilty of sexual sins that are a breach of the marriage covenant (Matthew 19:1-9).
• It is permitted in cases where a non-Christian spouse initiates divorce of a Christian spouse (I Corinthians 7:12-16).
6. It is important to realize that even in these cases divorce is an option fraught with its own perils, of a financial, emotional, spiritual, legal, and relational nature. Because of this, divorce should only be accepted after all attempts at reconciliation have failed.
7. The Bible is silent on what is permissible in instances where abuse occurs. We believe that such incidences were foreseen by Paul.

A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband…(1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

It seems to us that he is embracing the sanctity of marriage, while allowing that sinful behavior may necessitate separation. We advocate separation (not divorce), in the following situations.

• Where there is sexual abuse of children.
• Where there is a history of physical abuse and no progress in correcting the situation.
• Where there is a history of continuous severe verbal abuse that endangers the wellbeing of spouse and children.
• Where there is a lengthy pattern of mental or emotional sickness that the party refuses to accept responsibility for and receive treatment for.
8. When divorce occurs among members at Red Mountain Community Church it creates a great dilemma for the Church leaders. The following guidelines will generally govern those situations, though we reserve the right to approach them on a case-by-case basis.
• When divorce occurs as a consequence of sexual sin, we will remove the guilty party from membership unless they are repentant. If they are repentant, we will for purely practical reasons support them in finding another church where they can fellowship.
• When divorce is initiated by a spouse for reasons other than those specifically permitted in Scripture, and not desired by the other spouse, we will firmly warn the individual of their responsibility before God in the action they choose to pursue. The person who in this way initiates a divorce will be asked to leave Red Mountain Community Church.
• When a divorce is mutually agreed upon, but for reasons other than those specifically permitted in Scripture, we will firmly warn both spouses of their responsibility before God in the matter. They will not take the action with our blessing. We will expect the couple to decide with our help, which of them will attend Red Mountain Community Church, and which will find another church. The party that stays will be accountable to us in the matter of remarriage.
9. The issue of remarriage after a divorce is a separate matter and in all cases must be entered into very carefully and prayerfully, with thorough spiritual counsel. Generally, we would think that remarriage would be legitimate in cases where the divorce occurred in accordance with the actual statements of Scripture as stated under 5 above. In other cases the matter of remarriage would have to be examined on an individual basis.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

America has been collectively processing homosexuality in a very public way over the past three decades. There are diverse opinions being expressed on this subject in the political arena and in the religious arena. The tone of this conversation is varied as well, ranging from open hostility and violence to camaraderie and solidarity. As we watch and participate in this conversation at Red Mountain Community Church we have four important commitments that we want to honor. They are commitments that we think are inherent in calling oneself a follower of Christ.

• We are committed to conveying to all the story of God paying for our sins through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus. Conveying this story by word and deed is a trust that demands from us an open-heartedness to all people.
• We are committed to support any and all in their personal journey toward a fuller expression of the character of Christ. This demands understanding and tolerance of our imperfections, and patience as patterns of thought are wrestled with. We must foster the progress of all who wish to live as Christ desires them to live.
• We are committed to represent accurately what God has revealed in terms of his thought for humanity. Christ represented God to the very end, and it cost Him His life. We must follow Him in this.
• We are committed to a certain tone and rhetoric in all conversations. Our commitment is to speak our convictions with precision, but humbly, with loving, empathetic, and respectful words.

BIBLE INTERPRETATION

We believe that God has provided for us a written record of His heart and mind with regard to our experience of human life and existence. While this record does not give us an exhaustive revelation of all we might like to know about God, it is a sufficient unveiling of His thought so that we can know with certainty His mind on many matters. We realize that interpreting this record, the Bible, is a challenge, but not in the sense that its meaning is lost or hidden. Interpretation is challenging only because our knowledge of the culture and usage of words within those cultures is limited. And so those of us that have chosen to live by the principles of the Bible know well and first hand the challenges of Bible interpretation. There are sections of it that are very challenging.

THE BIBLE’S TEACHING

Having acknowledged the complexity of Bible interpretation, we must say that the passages of Scripture dealing with homosexuality are not among those difficult to interpret. In the entire record of the Bible that deals specifically with this subject, there is no contradiction. Though different human authors separated by centuries of time recorded the words, the accounts of the mind of God on this matter speak as from one voice. The testimony of the Bible is this; homosexuality is not God’s will for humanity (Leviticus 18:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV).

To those involved in the gay lifestyle, those words sting. We must empathize with that feeling. All who are Christ followers know that feeling well. It stings when we read about things like deceit, anger, slander and so many other things we naturally fall into. But there is no doubt about what the message of the Bible on homosexuality is. Homosexuality is outside of the will of God for us.

Many in Christian circles have sought to refute the acceptance of the actual words of the Bible on this subject. Only lowering one’s view of the Bible and dismissing its words as the testimony of a certain culture from a certain era in history can lead one to do this. To us however, if the Bible were that unreliable, logic would lead us to abandon our entire faith. If the record of the Bible is not reliable, then nothing in it can be trusted, and we would be foolish to base our thinking on any portion of it. In that case, what we have in it is a quaint, cultural tale, not the revelation of the mind of God. We believe that all evidence points to the Bible’s reliability.

THE GOSPEL AND HOMOSEXUALITY

What the Bible says about the practice of homosexuality is relatively easy to establish. How that message should be conveyed must be pondered carefully and prayerfully. We must remember that the grace and love of God must be communicated and demonstrated to all people. We all espouse that, but somehow when it comes to homosexuality, we have not practiced it. Some see no conflict in Christians carrying signs that say things like “God hates fags.” We must grieve at such things. We must not frontload the gospel with the demand that gays and lesbians lay aside their lifestyle before God can accept them. We would not be as quick to demand that of a liar, or of an arrogant person. Somehow we have come to view the gay lesbian community as having extra dues to pay. We must not project that the blood of Christ covers them only if it is combined with a promise never to practice homosexuality again! Our approach should be to extend the gospel to them as we would anyone else, with the deepest sincerity and love, as something freely offered by God. Once their spirits are united with God, effectual change in this matter is made possible, as with all other behaviors that are outside of God’s will. God will be faithful to bring inner conviction regarding truth. Can one be a Christian and practice homosexuality? Yes.

Can one be an obedient Christian and be practicing the gay lesbian lifestyle? No. Gays and lesbians who believe in Jesus are like all Christians in that we all share a common challenge. We must choose obedience on a momentby-moment basis, conforming to the pattern of life modeled by Jesus Christ. Diligence and faithfulness are required of all of us in myriads of real life issues that God desires to change in us. At risk is our progress in the Christian faith, our personal freedom, our eternal reward, and our experience of God’s power and blessing. This holds true whether one’s natural behavior leads them into fits of rage, into bouts of anxiety, into substance abuse, into adultery, or into homosexuality. We each have battles that relate to who we are and how life has shaped us. We must fight the battles and make the choices each moment of the rest of our lives on this earth.

“BUT I CAN’T FIGHT WHO I AM!”

On the subject of one’s sexuality the statement is often made that it is naturally determined and we must be true to who we are. We believe that this is a flawed argument not because we understand all the genetics of the matter. It is flawed because who we are naturally is not where God wants to leave us. In a host of areas God’s heart is to take us away from natural, instinctive living and to lead us into supernatural living that is choreographed within us by the Holy Spirit. The point of Christianity is that many things have gone wrong in all of creation and our loving and gracious God is in the process of patiently bringing it back. Sexuality is just one area in which we are called to something other than what comes naturally (Galatians 5:15-26; Ephesians 4:17-32).

WHAT WE MUST DO

The journey to where God wants us in so many matters is just that, a journey. It is a process we must get good at supporting in all people, no matter what their particular patterns of behavior have been. By getting good at supporting the spiritual journey of others we mean making a personal investment in them. We mean coming along side of them, speaking the truth in love, extending grace, building supporting relationships with them, standing with them through failure and re-starts. This is part of the debt that the Bible says we owe to each other. We must face the fact that we have wrongly arrived at the point where we extend great grace and patience in helping people through certain sins. Other sins, homosexuality being one of them, we tend to govern by different rules—one strike and you’re out! We must squarely face this bias that is in us.

What then will our posture be in the conversation regarding homosexuality? First, we simply do not have the freedom to change what God has revealed to be His will for us. To do so is to take His place, and make ourselves out to be God. That means that we must when asked, speak humbly, lovingly, and precisely for God. His will is that we leave behind the gay lesbian lifestyle. We will likely be misunderstood when we state this truth plainly. We must do all we can to mitigate that, which leads to a second observation. While the truth is not up for negotiation, our tone must be. We must be confident that we will not change or endanger the truth one iota by changing our tone and our posture in this conversation. We must go overboard in projecting a tone of grace and love. In doing so we will find ourselves representing more of the heart of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We will increase the power of the truth by the tone of our words.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

People who have a concern for a Church’s theology often ask this question of us, “Is Red Mountain reformed in their theology?” We are actually energized by this question, because there is little awareness or concern about theology among many rank-and-file Christians. The term “Reformed Theology” has different meanings to different people who pose this question. Even among the more official definitions published there is variation. Rather than seeking to plod through all of the various ways of expressing what reformed theology is, we thought it best to simply state the sense in which we would call ourselves part of the “reformed tradition.”

Strictly speaking, we are reformed in that we are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. We believe the reformation as a movement was essential, that it was the work of the Holy Spirit because the truth as taught by Christ and his apostles had been set aside. In its place there came to be a hierarchy and a doctrinal system that could not be justified by the Scriptures.

The heart of the reformers can be expressed by five convictions the movement embraced as it developed. These are referred to as the five solas. The term “sola” is the Latin word for alone or only. The reformers insisted that there were five theological principles that the Scriptures clearly established. They were

1. Sola Scriptura—Scriptures alone are the authoritative standard for belief and practice.
2. Solus Christus—By Christ alone we are justified before God.
3. Sola Gratia—Salvation is by God’s grace alone.
4. Sola Fide—Justification comes to us on the basis of our faith alone.
5. Soli Deo Gloria—All things are for the Glory of God alone.

We are reformed in the sense that we embrace these five “solas.” They provide the foundation for our statement of faith.

CALVINISM

One of the great voices within the reformation movement was John Calvin. He carefully recorded his protests against Rome in his comprehensive work Institutes of the Christian Religion. These are a reflection of the theology that was beginning to emerge as Protestantism stretched its wings and sought to return to the faith as it was set forth by the apostles in the writings of the New Testament.

As the thinking done by Calvin was processed by others, particular positions with respect to the salvation of humanity began to emerge under the label of Calvinism. Five such principles were set forth in 1619 at the Synod of Dord. Eventually these five principles came to be designated by the acrostic TULIP. These are referred to by many as essentials of “Reformed Theology.” They are:

1. Total depravity of man—the complete inability of humanity to merit salvation in God’s eyes.
2. Unconditional election—that God chose certain individuals to whom He would extend salvation, and did so apart from merit on their part.
3. Limited Atonement—Christ’s work on the cross provides for the forgiveness of the sins of only the elect, those chosen unconditionally by Him.
4. Irresistible Grace—Those whom God has chosen He will draw irresistibly to faith in Him. They cannot thwart His sovereign choice of them.
5. Perseverance of the Saints—All those whom God has chosen will come to faith and will all be saved finally by Him at the last judgment. None will be lost.

One of the difficulties with these so-called five points of Calvinism is that there is a varied understanding of them. Here is where we at Red Mountain Community Church stand in relation to each of them

• Total depravity of man—we agree with this principle. Humanity has no capability to know, seek out, or please God in and of ourselves.
• Unconditional election—We agree with this principle as well. Salvation comes to individuals who were chosen by God in eternity past. They were not chosen due to innate goodness in them, nor on the basis of good works God foresaw them doing.
• Limited Atonement—We believe that the Scripture says that God loves the world and that Christ died for the sins of the world. This means that the atonement of Christ is limitless in value. This does not mean that every human will be forgiven for their sin. Only those who believe will be forgiven and have eternal life with God. The atonement then has limited application, bringing salvation to those who believe. We stop short of saying that Christ died only for the elect.
• Irresistible Grace—We agree that those whom God has chosen He will draw irresistibly to faith. They cannot thwart His sovereign choice of them. Some might apply this principle to sanctification, and suggest that the Christian cannot resist God’s grace as it comes to them through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in matters like trial, personal discipline and self-restraint. The fact is that we can and do resist the Spirit and are warned against it in Scripture.
• Perseverance of the Saints—We agree that all whom God has chosen will come to faith and will be saved completely and finally by Him at the last judgment. Of all whom He has chosen, He will lose none. Some in the reformed movement insist that the personal holiness that God seeks to establish in us during our lives on earth is guaranteed by this principle. It seems to us from the Bible that the level of sanctification we rise to as Christians in this life on earth is varied. It depends on our response to the Holy Spirit and our practice of the disciplines of discipleship. It is unfortunate that we as Christian can and do resist God’s grace, and so limit the degree to which we experience the life He wishes to give us.

Some consider the practice of infant baptism to be an essential of the “reformed” faith. Red Mountain Community Church believes that Baptism is an outward demonstration of one’s faith in the death and resurrection of Christ—the Gospel. Therefore, we do not practice infant baptism. We do summon all those who have placed faith in Jesus Christ to follow His command to be baptized.

What then is the answer to the question, “Is Red Mountain Community Church reformed?” We are Protestant, and follow the tradition of faith established by the reformers. We believe that the reformers, men like Martin Luther and John Calvin but also many others, were raised up by God to restore healthy and sound doctrine. Are we reformed according to the specific movement within Christianity that has adopted the specific label “reformed”? Those that hold tightly to that movement would not say so on the basis of our positions on the issues above.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

Implementing the Bible’s statements on male headship in marriage has proven to be a great challenge to Christian people over the centuries. There is no question that the concept has been warped, distorted and abused to the advantage of males. We know that evil has warped everything within God’s creation and every aspect of His revelation of Himself and truth to humanity. So the distortions of this idea should not cause us to jettison it. The perversion of the truth, rather than causing the easy pendulum swing reaction, should cause us to carefully study, examine, and test it in order to discern truth from error.

The statements about the husband’s headship in marriage are present throughout Scripture in words addressed to fallen people in a fallen world. It must be possible to rightly implement them in a way that marginalizes no one. As people of the Scripture we feel the responsibility to reckon with these statements and come to an understanding of what God desires in our homes.

The term and concept of male headship comes from verses like this one in Ephesians 5:22-24.

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

Our essential task is to understand verses like these and their implications in 21st century American Culture.

UNDERSTAND HOW THE WORD “HEAD” WAS USED IN SCRIPTURE

It is best to separate ourselves from what the idea of male headship has evolved into and try to begin with the basic meaning of the word “head” as it appears in verses like the one above. Altogether the word “head” appears 77 times in the New Testament. In the overwhelming majority of these verses it refers to the physical head as a part of the human body.

This plain-literal usage seems straight-forward enough. But before moving on to the metaphors that involve the word head, we must pause over this plain-literal usage momentarily. It is essential to remember how the original speakers and hearers viewed the head in terms of its role in the human body. They did not understand the head and the brain as we do today, as the seat of all thought and emotion. For example they thought of the emotions as emanating from the midriff. This understanding is reflected in the words of the Bible. And from outside the sphere of the writers of Scripture, Aristotle thought the heart, not the brain, was the location of intelligence and thought. People of the day would have seen the head as that part of the body that hosted certain physical senses and verbal powers. They knew well that if the head was severed life was lost. So our understanding of the brain as being the source of all movement and function of the body was unknown to them.

It is to readers with this mindset that the term “head” is used metaphorically in the New Testament. The most well-known instance of this is when Christ is referred to as the “head” of the Church. The community of believers are represented in this imagery by the rest of the body. To align this with their understanding of the human body they would have understood first and foremost that Christ was essential to the experience of spiritual life. If the body was severed from Him, spiritual life was lost. They would also have seen Christ as providing the hearing and seeing of things Divine. They would have understood His words as a revelation of those things. So in naming Christ as the head, there is the unmistakable idea that He is the source of spiritual life and godly direction. He is to the Church the authoritative voice.

Another metaphorical usage in the New Testament of the word head is found in the term “head of the corner” (Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11: 1 Peter 2:7, all of which refer to Isaiah 28:16). The picture in these passages is of a stone set in a place in such a way that determines the orientation and location of the rest of the stones in the building. Thus it determines the orientation of the building itself. So here the idea of head is that from which comes the appropriate ordering of the rest. There is again the inherent idea of a source of direction and order.

At another point head is used metaphorically to describe Christ’s relationship to other authority figures. He is said to be the head of all principality and power.

“…and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority (Colossians 2:10).

This is a way of saying that these powers exist only by his word or permission. He is the source of their authority.

A metaphorical usage outside of Scripture is insightful and harmonizes with these. The word “head” is used to refer to the source of a river, what we would call “its headwaters.” So the word in that case has the same general idea—that which provides the beginning to something that then grows as it progresses along on its course.

And so if we look at all these usages the common theme is that a “head” is the source by which a certain reality is shaped. That reality may be an act of the body, a building, a ministry of a church, or a political regime on the earth. In any of these cases the “head” is that by which something is initiated and that by which it gains its shape. Headship can be initially defined then as a source of influence, placed so as to shape some visible reality.

HEADSHIP IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11:3

“I want you to understand that the Christ is the head of every man, and the man is head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3).

Having established how the word head is used we can apply that to this central verse on headship and come to a better understanding of what male headship in marriage is and what it is not. Though this verse is not specifically about marriage, it does shed light on that relationship.

This verse states three relationships in which headship is exercised. It states this as a simple reality, apparently a matter of God’s design. It names first the relationship between Christ and every man, then the relationship between man and woman, and thirdly the relationship between God and Christ. Of the three relationships, two are between equals—the relationship between God and Christ and the relationship between man and woman. The other relationship, the one between Christ and every man, is between non-equals.

First, as we think about the relationship between two equals, God and Christ, we find that the term marks not a difference in value or ability or essence, but in role. The Father is presented as the source of all authority, but He is also clearly a loving source for all that the Son needs to carry out the Father’s wishes. By His nature the Father is able to exercise loving influence in such a way that the Son brings the Father’s desires about.

Second, as we think of the relationship between two unequal partners, Christ and man, we find that Christ is clearly over man in terms of authority. We also find that He is a source of all things, from the world man lives in to all that sustains man’s daily life. Christ is able by virtue of who He is and through love, to influence in such a way that man brings both His and the Father’s desires about.

These first two inform us about the third, the relationship between man and woman. This relationship is between equals, both are of human essence, both bear the image of God, and both are equally loved by God. Except that they are fallen beings, their relationship is similar to that which exists between the Father and the Son. The clear parallel is that a husband has a God-given ability and responsibility to exercise loving influence in a way that assures a desired outcome. His responsibility is to know and aim for the outcome God desires, even as the Son knows and aims for the outcome the Father desires. To understand loving influence, a husband need only ponder how Christ leads him through sacrificial love.

There are at least six observations on headship we can make from this verse.

1. There need not be inequality for God to ordain headship.
2. Godly headship does involve authority and submission.
3. The method of godly headship is sacrificial love—the giving of all one has for the welfare of the one loved.
4. Godly headship is intensely relational as opposed to authoritarian or aloof.
5. In the case of both Jesus and husbands, their headship is carried out in a context of their own submission to their head.
6. Headship is ordained by God, integral to the design of marriage, and inherent in each
   marriage.

HEADSHIP IN THE CREATION ACCOUNT

The concept of male headship is evident in the detail of the creation of man and woman in Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1 we see that both male and female were made in the image of God. God’s stated vision was that they would rule the earth for God, meaning for His benefit and as He Himself would do it. It is important to note that the image of God, and His vision that humanity rule the earth had to do with both male and female.

We have an expanded account of how the creation of man and woman occurred in Genesis 2. There we see that God created man first, and actually began to entrust the man alone with ruling. Man was placed in the garden of Eden to “work it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). The rule was laid down to the man alone that in his ruling he did not have the freedom to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16). So before woman was created there was work man was charged with and a command he was not to violate. Also before woman was created, and likely as a preparatory act, God had Adam name the animals. God brought them all before Adam and accepted whatever name man assigned. So man was engaged by the Creator in another task of ruling creation. It was in this process that it was found by Adam that there was not a “helper fit for him.”

The conclusion that Adam lacked a helper was likely based on two things. First, even before sin, the cultivation and care of just the garden would have been a daunting task for one man alone. How much more to rule over the entire earth! Reproduction was essential to the plan of God.

There simply needed to be more humans! Man had no capacity to reproduce himself. For this he needed a helper. Second, something was lacking in the core makeup of the male alone. A lone man could not rule as God willed it. It is likely this that had led God to observe earlier that it was not good for man to be alone. It was not good for creation as God had envisioned and designed it for man to rule it alone. Man needed a complimentary being to be complete in terms of ability to rule the earth. Wives would provide a missing physical piece and the missing intellectual/emotional piece so that God’s mind for the earth could become a reality. Humanity, male and female, would be enabled through each other to rule the earth for God.

So from what we can reconstruct, it seems that God knew that by design man alone was not equipped to fulfill his stewardship of ruling earth. God created woman to help man so that this stewardship could be discharged faithfully. God likely started with man alone to inform him firsthand of his need, so that his headship would be love-driven and respectful. The creation of woman was far more than a provision of labor in the tasks of life. The intellectual, emotional and physical impress of both were essential. The whole of God’s design for ruling the earth He provided for in the man and woman together. Together their pursuit of God’s mind and heart would bring about godliness in the offspring their love produced, and these would multiply and perpetuate God’s work over the entire earth.

THE ESSENCE OF HEADSHIP IN MARRIAGE

When we speak of male headship in the home we are speaking of something organic. By the sovereign creative act of God husbands determine the shape their own homes take on. In other words, they are such by creation that who they are spills over and becomes the determining factor in the atmosphere the home takes on. Now God’s call to men is to be a source of that which their home needs to conform to God’s desire for it. But the fact is that they will shape it, whether cruelly or kindly, passively or aggressively, towards a godly or ungodly end. It will bear the fruit of who they are. This is imbedded in their maleness and it is a sobering fact. There is no rationale for any of the perversions that have developed over the centuries of this designation of the husbands as head of the home. Evil has superimposed on God’s design demeaning and false ideas about women, implying inferiority in intellect, in emotional strength, and in potential for real contribution. These have led to many opportunities being withheld from them. It has allowed for very one-sided marriages. The fact that headship and submission are modeled within the Godhead should render all these ideas invalid.

It must also be said that evil is what makes the idea of headship difficult for humanity to reckon with. As we have seen, headship is present within the Godhead without abuse. It is present within the ranks of angels without abuse. God has ordained it in the Church, so it cannot be evil in and of itself if it is of him. But in the hearts of humanity evil helps us invent ways of gaining advantage over others. This is what has happened in marriage.

The role of being head is a call to husbands to turn away from self-determination and toward submission to Jesus Christ. He becomes the leader and the model of all actions. It is a call away from self-centeredness and into sacrificial love. It is a call away from an authoritarian style and into an intensely relational style of leadership. It is a call to model and establish an atmosphere of truth and truthfulness. From a practical point of view, three essential things must happen if a man is to head his home in the way God wishes. He must know, he must initiate, and he must love.

• So first, a man must know his Creator in a relational sense. He must know how Yahweh, this personal God, generally works and His general will for human conduct on the planet. He must commit himself to truth and truthfulness. He must be convinced that God has a
  specific plan for his life and that of his family. He must know that his wife, by God’s design, is one of his greatest assets in learning these things, and the two should have an ongoing, uninterrupted conversation about them.
• Second, a man must initiate. Being a source for others means being there first. A man will, by virtue of his maleness, initiate a certain atmosphere in the home. He must present himself as the equal of all others—mutually dependent on Yahweh. He must show himself
  teachable, humble, transparent, and in pursuit of godliness. In doing so he will initiate an atmosphere of safety and trust. He will establish an atmosphere that is spiritual instead of fleshly. A husband initiates and protects a process of ongoing corroboration with his wife
  whereby they establish and define the mind of the Lord in all matters. The woman is not man’s helper in the sense that she just follows orders after her husband has determined God’s will. Neither is she just a helper in terms of the tasks of the home. She is a helper in terms of setting and maintaining the vision for the home. A husband heads his home by initiating the atmosphere that fosters this ongoing conversation between husband and wife.
• Third, a man must love. This means he must be the first to extend mercy, kindness, forgiveness, and affirmation along with firmness. He must initiate self-sacrifice. He is wise to confess fault first. He is wise to initiate conversation over misunderstanding. He must model submission to the Lord. He must mimic the sacrificial love of Christ.

Headship of husbands can only occur where there is submission of wives. Headship cannot occur without submission. This is true in the Godhead. It is also true in the relationship between Christ and His Church. Furthermore, for there to be true headship, submission must be volunteered. If it
is coerced it is tyranny. Voluntary submission is what wives are persistently called to in Scripture. There is nothing inherent in submission that is demeaning or risky. Christ is not inferior, and He is not less significant by His act of submission to the Father. A husband by submitting to Christ is not at risk to be unloved, to be abused, or to be made insignificant. There is risk in submitting to her husband for the wife, due to sin in humanity. There is also great potential for health and strength. It requires trust in both Yahweh and in the husband to submit.

Submission is voluntary only where there is respect. So a wife must respect her husband.

“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (Ephesians 5:33).

The difficulty of this is that our natural behavior is to respect those who are respectable. So how does a wife respect a flawed, perhaps even less capable person than her? The key to this dilemma is for a wife to approach the issue of respect with three words in mind. The words are capacity, realism, and compliment.

• First, a wife will be helped to respect her husband by focusing on his capacity, not his performance. By the design carried out in creation the husband is ordained to be a spiritual head and this capacity is conferred on him by God in marriage. Whether or not he does so in a spiritual way does not change the fact that this is his role and that he is given by God capacity to actually be a spiritual man. Every husband has an inherent capacity to fill this needed role in the life of the wife God places him with and in the home they form. Just the fact that God has raised him up and made him husband deposits in him that which is respectable. So a wife can respect her husband’s calling and capacity even if his performance is lacking.
• Second, a wife will be helped to respect her husband through realism not idealism. It is absolutely certain that every husband is a sinful man. It is equally true that no husband will ever get over this! So if it is believed that sin in a husband makes him untrustworthy and unsafe and so allows respect to be withdrawn, then it is a fore drawn conclusion that no husband can ever be the head of his home. Realistically, every husband’s sin and faults will be encountered. Realism looks for confession and repentance. If a husband admits sin and repents of it, he distinguishes himself from the overwhelming majority of humanity. There is in that action much that is respectable.
• A wife will be helped to respect her husband if she seeks in him that which is complimentary to her, not similar to her. The human tendency is to respect those that agree with us and who do as we do. It is a shallow respect that is only conveyed to those who are like us. There is every reason to expect that God would place people together in marriage that compensate for each other’s weaknesses. We must respect our spouses for what they bring to us. Our respect must not be given on the basis of how they agree with and mimic us. Their way of showing love, of dealing with emotion, and handling of money should be seen as needed influences.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

God’s leading in husbands and wives works towards all the things discussed above. As a man and a woman come together in spiritual, emotional and physical unity, they are enabled and resourced to engage fully in carrying out God’s rule on earth. By His design, husbands are charged and equipped to initiate and maintain an atmosphere that fosters knowledge of and relationship to God. By God’s design a wife’s respect spurs the husband along in that work. She gains the right to influence in profound ways his direction. In sacrificially loving his wife a husband will find in her great resource in knowing the Creator.

It is important to remember that headship and submission need not be defined in American culture by tasks, such as who cooks, who makes the most money, who manages the money. They need not be symbolized with veils, as they were in the cultures of the Bible and in many cultures today. We have great freedom in these matters. That freedom allows these things to be fleshed out a little differently in each marriage. It is hard to imagine anything more ideal. In such an environment we must be certain not to leave the principle of headship behind as we abandon the trappings. We must remember that the proper rule of the planet depends on healthy marriage, which itself depends on this principle.

SOME RELATED “WHAT-IF?” SCENARIOS

There are some very relevant and important questions that arise as headship plays out in real life. Three of the more common ones are treated below.

If the husband is not a Christian, should his Christian wife submit to him? There are deep and important complications that come into marriage when it is not centered in Christ. In the early Church being married to an unbelieving husband was a very common scenario. Peter wrote specifically about it. His words are:

“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they will be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct” (1 Peter 3:1-2).

God has no alternate design for marriage. Peter’s words affirm the principle of the husband’s headship, even in the case of a mixed faith marriage. In fact, submission of the wife is presented as an avenue by which the husband may come to faith in the gospel.

So though there are complications to the marriage relationship when either or both spouses are apart from the Lord, the design of marriage remains constant. The headship of the husband is the design of God for marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 addresses mixed faith marriages as well. Paul speaks to the idea that God’s special care extends to such homes and marriages because of the faith of the believing spouse. So a believing spouse need not worry about losing God’s blessing on their home due to the lack of faith in their spouse.

In these verses Paul also speaks to what the obligation of a believer is to an unbelieving spouse. He clearly states that the believer should not seek divorce. On the contrary, they should seek to bring their spouse to faith. But if the unbeliever chooses to end the marriage, then that is the end of the marriage. Paul says that in such a case the believer is not bound to that person—held responsible to somehow make the marriage work.

What if the husband is abusive? Physical abuse is against the laws of our land. There is no requirement on wives to submit to such a thing. We are not advocating divorce in this situation. We are advocating immediate separation for the sake of safety. We are advocating protection through legal means. We are advocating a firm statement made by the local Church to the particular husband.

Verbal and emotional abuse is a complex matter. It is virtually certain that any and all who have ever been married, male and female, could be construed to have been abused in these ways by their spouse. Our self-centeredness virtually guarantees that abusive speech is a part of our make-up. So rather than governing situations where there is verbal and emotional abuse by rule or policy, the church leadership must become involved in the individual cases. They must lend advice and help, and then monitor progress. They must demand change. If conditions persist, they must render a decision on what the appropriate course of action is for the wife.

Should a wife submit to her husband if he is advocating that she sin? In the name of submission wives have been led into immorality, the worship of false gods, lying, theft, and the like by their husbands. This is an unfortunate reality in marriage in a fallen world. It is a wife’s roll and duty to call such behavior into question. She is wise to adopt a proper tone in doing so. She is wise to discern the end which the husband is seeking to achieve and suggest alternatives. In the end her decision must be made as carefully and prayerfully as time allows. There are times to stand on principle and not submit. There are times to warn, submit, and remember that the head will bear the responsibility for that which he initiates and requires.

Should this situation arise there should not be an aftermath of distrust on the wife’s part toward her husband. Sarah is held up as a model of submission (1 Peter 3:6), and we know that Abraham did ask her to lie (Genesis 12:11-16). That she submitted to this does not prove that it is God’s desire for wives to submit to sinful requests. It does show that a husband who does such a thing is still worthy of respect.

We must face the reality of this matter squarely. Headship is not based on the idea that husbands are morally superior, much less pure! In fact, it is a stewardship husbands are charged with. They shoulder the responsibility with regard to the direction they take the family in matters where there is no obvious moral principle at stake. That is why a critical part of headship is healthy dialogue with one’s wife whom God has given to help a husband discern Godly direction.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

Our Church is a community of people who are pursuing a specific way of living. It is a way of living we believe our Creator-God has called us to. To the best of our understanding, we seek to live this way. We also know that not all feel called to this lifestyle. We respect their right to chose and pursue a different one. Furthermore, we are determined not to be mean-spirited in holding to our convictions. We also know that all who arrive at Red Mountain Community Church are in process. We could even be understood as being in different states of disrepair! We are united together by our pursuit, not by the fact we have achieved it. As such people in process, we want to outline here how God has led us to approach marriage, and what you can expect to find us teaching and pursuing in this critical relationship.

We believe that finding the love of your life is one of the greatest blessings God gives you. We also believe that marriage is God’s provision for making that relationship even better and for sustaining it so that it lasts a lifetime and leads to many other blessings. So an important part of what we do at Red Mountain Community Church is to help couples establish strong marriages and then help keep those marriages healthy.

To all who are interested in marriage at Red Mountain we think you need to know that we have an important presupposition about marriage. Here it is. God designed marriage, and when His design is followed the emotional health of both spouses is maximized and their full potential as human beings is realized. When His design is not followed, all bets are off. Therefore His design is paramount to us and we regard it as a precious possession to embrace and pass along to you.

HOW WE UNDERSTAND MARRIAGE

We believe that God’s will regarding marriage is very plain. Marriage is a lifetime agreement entered into by a man and a woman. That agreement consists of their vow to love one another according to the pattern of love taught by the Bible, until they are parted by death. We help establish marriage in this sense as a legally binding agreement, with the appropriate documentation required by the Laws of the State of Arizona.

OUR VISION FOR MARRIAGE

Our vision for you goes way beyond helping you have a beautiful, legal ceremony and collecting a fee! We want to start you down the path that enriches both you and your spouse, and that helps you rise to all that God has created you to be. Consequently, we are interested in helping you along the way in your journey. And so in our Church ministry we provide much that will stimulate individual spiritual growth. It is a great thing to be a spouse who is growing spiritually and to have a spouse that is doing the same. Through our marriage ministry we provide opportunities and resources that refresh marriages. We also provide counseling through the rough spots and stalemates that can develop along the way. We even envision you helping others build a healthy marriage through the lessons you learn together. So we are all in—not just to cheer for you at the starting line.

BEFORE YOU’RE MARRIED

Since we share your desire to start well, we will ask you to attend pre-marital counseling sessions that we provide. This is a requirement if you wish to have your wedding in our Church or if you desire one of our pastors to perform the ceremony. In some cases, we may allow you to receive your counseling at another church, but we must process that decision together. This counseling will help you understand differences and similarities between you. It will help you identify things that otherwise might surprise you in an unpleasant way. We have never seen a couple that does not profit greatly from this investment of time.

WHAT TO EXPECT IN THE CEREMONY

There is much about the ceremony itself that you will have opportunity to shape. All of the pastors and Elders at our Church have their own style that is unique. But there are some common elements that you should expect from all of us that are non-negotiable. So expect that we will present the gospel as part of the ceremony. By that we mean that we will express this basic Christian belief, that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world as predicted and as prescribed by Scripture, and that God raised Him from the dead. You should also expect that you will be called on to promise certain things to each other. You may express these things in vows you yourself write, but it will matter to us what those vows say since they are the heart and soul of the marriage commitment. Expect that part of the ceremony will be a short charge to you from the pastor or Elder regarding practical things that will help keep your marriage healthy. Expect that we will pray for you and your new home during the ceremony. And of course, expect the moment when we pronounce you husband and wife. There are a number of other elements that are often part of wedding ceremonies that you can add. You will have opportunity to talk through this with the person who performs your ceremony and our spirit will be that of making the whole experience a meaningful one for you and your guests. There are some pragmatic details of your wedding ceremony, such as fees charged for use of the church and for officiating at your wedding. These are covered in a separate document that our Marriage and Family Ministry can make available to you.

MANAGING WEDDING CHARADES

We live at a time when no one likes a lack of authenticity. They distrust churches that do a ceremony that lacks transparency and that leaves an elephant in the room. We don’t want to be part of that charade. You need to know that our reputation as a Church is at stake in your ceremony, and in a very real sense, Christ’s reputation is at stake in it as well. We need your help to honor Christ’s reputation. There are several things that could make it very awkward for us to honor Christ as we do your ceremony. One is if you and the one you love are already living together. Another is if you have previously been married. Help us! Please know that none of these things keep us from wanting to help you establish a home that is healthy and strong. So we ask you to be honest with us about situations like these and help us be who God needs us to be as ministers of His truth. In doing that you will meet your own need to be real as well. This is part of you beginning well and it is part of us being of maximum benefit to you. There are a number of ways we can manage awkward things well, if we engage them together. We’re anxious to do that with you.

A PARTING WORD

We sincerely want to help you start well, continue to be happily married, and manage the changes that life together will bring. At Red Mountain you’ll find great support for the many roles you will fill in the years ahead in your home. We hope that you’ll partner with us in that journey!

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

WHY WE BELIEVE IN A FUTURE KINGDOM RULED BY CHRIST ON THIS EARTH

In Zechariah chapters 12-14 there is an incredulous story about a swift revival that God would orchestrate in Jerusalem among Israelites by His sovereign and gracious hand. This story is typical of a number of prophecies, which project a future work of God in Israel.

“Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord of hosts is his name: “If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.” Thus says the Lord: “If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the Lord” ( Jeremiah 31:35-37).

Taken together, such Scriptures constitute an enormous weight of evidence in favor of the idea that God has not yet accomplished all He has planned for this people called Israel. The question is, are these prophecies speaking of ethnic Israel, or is the term Israel a metaphor, which speaks symbolically of another people group? The volume of testimony regarding “Israel” is so great that we must render a verdict regarding the identity of these people that occupy such a significant role in God’s plan for the ages.

Historically, most Christians have chosen to understand such testimony as being fulfilled through a remnant of the nation of Israel combined with a large number of Gentiles. Together these constitute a body of chosen ones known as the “elect” or the “church.” They are a spiritual Israel of sorts. This kingdom is spiritual by nature, but will have concrete and more visible form when God creates a new heaven and earth, and Christ rules as king over that earth inhabited by the elect from all ages. According to this position, the projections of future world prominence for Israel metaphorically point to the eventual reality of the kingdom of the elect on the new earth. One of the first Christian thinkers to articulate thought in this direction was Augustine in his work The City of God. That is a work, which continues to impact Christian thinkers to this day.

Along the way a much smaller number of Christians have chosen to believe that at some point in future time God will orchestrate a spiritual revival among ethnic Israelites. It will occur at the time when Christ returns physically to this earth. This revival will follow the script of Zechariah 12-14, and will result in the conversion of many on the earth. The eventual result will be that Christ, with the elect of all ages, will rule the present creation from the actual land of Israel. They will rule over the inhabitants of the earth who, with Israel, have come to recognize the identity of the one “they have pierced” (Zechariah 12:10).

There is a considerable weight of evidence in favor of this later position in terms of the actual statements of Scripture. The position is favored as well in terms of what is implicit in Scripture. There is other motivation to embrace this position, which is less weighty, being of a more pastoral and philosophical nature, but is still of value to mention in passing. The purpose of this publication is to present a shred of this evidence so as to call all those who care, to examine the matter more closely.

A statement of Scripture that is critical in the shaping of our understanding of future events is found in Romans 11:11. There, speaking of ethnic Israel, Paul writes, “I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall did they? May it never be! (NASB).

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

We believe that ministry is of the best quality when it is decentralized, that is, when it is carried out by the rank and file of the Church.

The pattern for ministry given in the New Testament is markedly different from that of the Old Testament. Under the old system, ministry was mainly carried out by the professional priests, those born into the tribe of Levi. It was the job of the priest to represent the people of Israel to God, acting as a go-between or mediator. The priests made intercession for the people and offered sacrifices on their behalf. All of this was to teach the Israel about the holiness of God and to point forward to the sacrifice and priestly ministry of the Messiah to come. Once Messiah had come and fulfilled all that the priestly system was unable to do in actuality, the old system was no longer necessary (Hebrews 7:18-19). Now there is only one high priest and mediator between God and man, the Man Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:17; 1 Timothy 2:5). Now all believers constitute a royal priesthood and have direct access to God through Jesus (1 Peter 2:9; Hebrews 10:19-22). All believers are therefore ministers of the good news of forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Since all believers are ministers of the Gospel, it follows that the Church works best when all its members are involved. This point is beautifully illustrated by the analogy of the body used by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12. Each part of the body carries out a unique function that benefits the rest of the body. Each member is important. Likewise, in the body of Christ, which is the Church, each member has a unique combination of giftedness, ministry and empowerment. Through each person a unique work of the Holy Spirit is carried out to strengthen the Church. Thus, the Church’s ministry is maximized in every aspect when all of its members are working and working together.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

A church’s Music and Worship Program can either be one of the biggest blessings and Godhonoring programs or one of the most contentious. People have very strong feelings about the type and style of music that they personally like. Factors that influence opinion regarding music preference include age, family upbringing, past worship styles, generational differences, personality, and whether a person is introverted or extroverted.

From a church leadership standpoint, answering the question, “Which type of music style best reflects our congregational worship experience?” is difficult and fraught with potential danger.

From a Biblical standpoint, the Elders of the church have only a few guidelines and principles to base their decision on. The Bible tells us to:

• praise the Lord with our whole heart (Psalm 138:1)
• bless the Lord (Psalm 144:1)
• extol our God and King (Psalm 145:1)
• give thanks (Psalm 136:1)
• remember all of His benefits and acts of kindness (Psalm 103)
• remember His attributes (Psalm 101:1)
• confess our sins (Psalm 32, 51)
• sing to the Lord (Psalm 95)
• make a joyful shout to the Lord (Psalm 100:1)

The Bible gives us freedom to worship in stillness (Psalm 4:4), with quiet instruments (Psalm 150:3b, 4b), or with loud instruments (Psalm 150:3a, 4a, 5). It seems as the whole of Scripture is interpreted that the Lord is not as concerned with the type of worship music as He is the heart attitude of obedience (1 Samuel 15:22).

Different churches are led to handle the congregational music style selection in different ways. Some larger churches that have multiple worship services arrange their services according to worship style. They might have one traditional, one current, and one that would be cutting-edge. The advantage to this format is that it makes the people happy that prefer only one music style and that can make it to whatever time slot that this style is offered. The disadvantage to this format is that it tends to “lock” people into their preferences and also minimizes the amount of time slots that will be used to reach and minister to the most amount of people.

Other churches are led to specialize in one music style. Usually congregations that are an established denomination or sometimes have an older aged congregation go with a traditional approach to their music selection. Other churches that are led to reach primarily the youngest age groups go with a cutting-edge approach.

The approach which the leadership at Red Mountain Community Church has been led to take is primarily a current approach. We arrived at this approach through prayer and believe it to be the best way to build up and equip the church for its ministry to future generations. Through this approach, we will be able to remain relevant to the culture that will next replenish our local body and Christ’s kingdom.

Therefore, we believe that our worship services should have biblically based songs set to modern and culturally up-to-date music. The Bible tells us in Psalm 149:1 to “Praise the Lord. Sing to the Lord a new song, His praise in the assembly of the saints.” The Lord desires for His saints to always be coming up with new ways to sing about His wonderful works and character.

“Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart” (Ephesians 5:19).

Ephesians 5:19 gives us the picture of the early church living their lives out in joyful praise. They were exhorted to speak among themselves in three almost synonymous ways: psalms (composed sacred songs), hymns (sacred poetical compositions), and spiritual songs (new songs guided in their composition by the Holy Spirit). These were then designed to be sung with music in the hearts of the congregation.

The dynamic of worship in the redeemed church is to be full of biblical praise, full of the Holy Spirit, and designed in such a way that magnifies the Lord’s work and ways in the cultural context of the day. Under the current music approach, the church should strive for songs that are rich in scriptural truth and yet set to modern music.

What this means from a congregational perspective is that Red Mountain’s Music and Worship Program will be constantly changing and in a state of flux. In order to stay current, the music will always need to be updated. Traditional songs will be inserted into the Music and Worship Program but will be primarily changed into a current style of music (one that fits the modern and culturally up-to-date definition). Also cutting-edge music will be inserted and sometimes added to the Music and Worship Program in order to keep it current with the times.

What fits into the current definition requires wisdom and discernment from the Holy Spirit? The responsibility for monitoring this will be with our Spirit-led Worship Pastor and our Spirit-led Elders. The leadership at Red Mountain hopes and prays that those that would like something other than current music would find their worship needs met in either their adult community, youth group, or that the current worship style might become a joyful expression of their love of Christ.

It is our desire to truly see Jesus Christ our Lord honored and adored. Praise the Lord!

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

We believe that the key role of church staff is to equip and mobilize the people for ministry.

It has been established that the ministry is to be carried out by the whole Church, involving each individual member. That being said, what is the unique role of the leadership, then? The teaching of the New Testament is clear: the role of those in leadership is to equip the whole body to do the ministry.

“It was he [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be
evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers to prepare God’s people for service,
so that the body of Christ may be built up” Ephesians 4:11-12).

Church leaders are to shepherd the congregation, caring for them and providing sound spiritual direction. They are to lead by example, not lording their authority over those in their charge, but as under shepherds accountable to Christ. All this they do with a view to enable the individual members of Christ’s body to be effective ministers themselves.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

We know that sexual intercourse can be the most powerfully bonding experience in human relationships. So it stands to reason that sexual expression plays a significant role in a healthy marriage. We also know that past sexual experiences are carried forward and can have a profound impact on a future marriage. All this means that anyone who dreams of having a healthy marriage and a strong family should give very careful thought to their own sexual behavior.

We are seeing the tremendous price our society is paying for unbridled sexual expression. The cost in dollars, though very high, is the least significant factor in the losses that are occurring. Of far greater significance is the reality of the emotional scars in individuals, torn, and ragged from former sexual encounters. In our present culture we are quick to recognize the damage done by
the more traumatic sexual behaviors such as rape, incest, and sexual abuse. At the same time, we are reluctant to consider that we may be scarred in some way by any sexual behavior outside
the boundaries of marriage. There is in place among many, confidence that sex by “mutual consent” is without risk.

There are ominous signs in our society that our experiment with free love is not working. However, as powerful as such pragmatic reasons are for establishing boundaries in our sexual expression, they are secondary. Those loyal to Christ have never shaped their lives by what “works,” or what “feels right,” and certainly not by what they can get away with. They have always been compelled by one question that leads them to “the main thing” in any matter of this life—what does God want from us? Since our sexuality was designed and created by God, we are looking for what He as the Creator and Designer approved and taught. We are assuming that functioning by design will be best for us in the more pragmatic realm.

The purpose in this paper then, is to summarize clearly and concisely what God has approved in terms of sex between men and women. We are not looking for what people in the Bible did, since Scripture gives a very transparent account of the sins of its heroes. We are looking for what God commanded.

The Scripture reports that God chose Abraham and established through him the ethnic group known to us as Jews, Israelites, or Hebrews. To a large degree their God, Yahweh, defined
Hebrew culture. He entrusted to them Laws and practices through Moses, to set them apart from other cultures of the day. The Laws and practices entrusted to Israel relating to sexuality and sexual expression provide us with a window into the heart of God on this matter.

In the Hebrew culture of the Old Testament, sexual intercourse was clearly attached to the consummation of marriage. There were tests of virginity that became grounds for annulling a marriage (Deuteronomy 22:15-24). These tests were crude by our standards today. The point here is not to debate the relative accuracy of these tests. It is that the presence of such tests indicates that virginity was what the Hebrews expected to find in their spouse. This expectation was so strong that the term virgin came to be used simply to signify the unmarried (Lamentations 1:14,18; 2:10; Amos 8:13; Zechariah 9:17).

The term “adultery” was used of extra-marital sex. Adultery is forbidden in the Ten Commandments. The consistent testimony of the Old Testament regarding God’s opinion and desire is that sexual intercourse be practiced only within the bounds of marriage. Within marriage sexual expression between a husband and wife is not only permitted, it was regarded as something of sacred beauty (Proverbs 5:18-23).

The New Testament writers embraced this pattern that was established through the Old Testament writers. They held sex between husbands and their wives in high regard. A key verse in the teaching of the New Testament is Hebrews 13:4.

“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous” (Hebrews 13:4).

It is typical of the rest of the New Testament in that it employs the term “fornication,” or in some versions “sexual immorality” for sexual activity outside of marriage. It forbids it. It employs the term “adultery” for extra-marital sexual activity and forbids it. It regards marriage as honorable, including the accompanying sexual intimacy.

The teaching of the Bible is simple and straightforward. Sexual expression between husband and wife in marriage is good, important, and blessed by God. Sexual expression outside of marriage is not His will for us.

When the sun sets, darkness comes slowly. It is our experience that informs us that it will not stay light long. It appears from the experiment of the last 50 years, that when this simple counsel of God regarding sex was set aside, the consequences were not immediately evident. Nothing immediately imploded. But the physical consequences soon came into view. The number of unwanted pregnancies began to grow, as did the number of babies born out of wedlock. The number of children born into poverty began to rise. Sexually transmitted diseases became epidemic. Experience tells us the consequences go beyond the physical ones. Emotional consequences are certainly present among many thousands who may have consented to sex, but for all the wrong reasons—for acceptance, love, pleasure, and companionship. Some consent through manipulation and deceit, others simply to belong or so as not to be left out. There is considerable wreckage out there that is being passed along to future generations because we have set aside God’s counsel on sex.

Our approach to sexuality is a faith issue. The essence of the matter is whom do we trust? Do we really wish to trust our own judgment over that of our Creator? When we function according to the design of God, we believe that life will “work” for us. And so we believe that there are great and significant dividends realized by all who abstain from sex until they are joined in marriage to the person of God’s choice. This is a faith exercise.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

INHERENT RISK

Risk is inherent to life in our fallen world, particularly in the age when modern travel brings us into direct contact with radical religion and politics. There are places where Americans are in danger just because they are Americans.

“I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me” (John 16:1-3).

Risk is also inherent in the Christian life. There are places where Christians are in danger just because they are Christians. People of the Christian faith have always encountered danger in their efforts to spread the gospel. They have faced danger from those that oppose their presence and message, and from natural causes such as sickness, injury, and natural catastrophe. It is safe to say that the Gospel never would have come to us or to any one else if Christian workers had stayed home when things got risky. The faith has spread through the suffering of those who spread it.

As leaders at Red Mountain Community Church, we recognize that such risk is present in all mission efforts. We realize that there are certain times when such efforts should be called off. There are other times when they must be carried out in the face of risk. Here follows some of the principles that we would advise all to use in making personal decisions about their involvement
in mission trips whether at home in the USA, or in foreign countries.

THE BOTTOM LINE PRINCIPLE

In any effort to advance the kingdom in any place it must be asked by the individual participants, “Does God really want me to engage in this mission?” This is the bottom line principle because in the end, all that matters is that we each accomplish what God has called us to do. There is no risk greater than that of not being obedient to His call.

We understand that as church leaders we can be made aware through God’s Spirit, that His will for us as a church is to engage in a risky mission effort. When we become so aware, we are not saying that safety and well-being of everyone involved is guaranteed. We will make every attempt to communicate known risks. Then each individual, along with their guardians where appropriate, must determine if God wants them personally to be involved. So ultimately we see that the matter of risking one’ safety and well-being is an individual one.

We do believe, as Christians of all ages have, that if a person’s involvement in a specific mission effort is God’s will, then God can and should be trusted with the outcome, whether pleasant or unpleasant. In the end, He will judge righteously and make up the losses. This is true even if it should cost us our physical life. We see this as a very basic tenant of the Christian faith.

THE PRINCIPLE OF RISK ASSESSMENT

As individuals determine God’s will for them in such matters, certain sound principles can be of great use. In the Scripture we find times when life and safety were put on the line (Acts 21:10-14). We also find times when this was avoided (Acts 9:23-25; 23:12-22). The primary factor in the decision seems to have been the specific leading of the Lord in the matter. We assume that in such decisions, wisdom was sought out. We must do the same. Risk assessment is not determining if something COULD happen. Something bad COULD happen at home! We trust God with the unknown. When we speak of risk assessment we are speaking of determining the KNOWN risks and thinking through the likelihood of certain consequences.

There are two reliable sources of information in this regard.

1. State Department advisories are a source of information. They will often err in the direction of safety, but as citizens we owe it to our fellow-citizens to utilize this information. A State Department advisory against travel is not necessarily a “No!” from the Lord. It is a caution and a warning that significant risk is involved and should be evaluated carefully.
2. People on the ground, in the particular country and on location are another important source of information. Their assessment of the everyday situation is critical. If they say don’t come, it is probably a deal-breaker. In all cases the evaluation of those on site will be sought out.

Those experienced in global missions would say that media reports vary widely in their credibility when they report on dangerous conditions within a country. They serve primarily as an alert to study the matter carefully. News reports, in and of themselves, should not become to us our prime source of information.

THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY

The line can get rather subtle between Godly zeal and the mere fleshly pursuit of adventure. Missions can be the mantra, when sightseeing and tourism is the real motive. We can suppose ourselves to be doing the work of the gospel when there is no proclamation of the gospel connected with our own effort.

For these reasons there are secondary questions that must be asked in taking on risks associated with mission work. They are secondary because the primary question always remains, “Does God want me to do this?” Here are two secondary questions each individual should ask before they assume the risks inherent in mission work. First, we should ask, “What is the nature of the task that this particular effort requires of me?” Second, “Is this task that I will do connected intentionally to someone’s proclamation of the gospel?”

These two questions are significant because in the Scripture, it seems that missionaries risked life and safety when one of two things was at stake. First, they put it all on the line to make a verbal proclamation of the Gospel and establish people in the teaching of the faith (2 Timothy 1:8-12). Second, they put it on the line when the health of the Church was at stake. Paul’s trip to Jerusalem that eventually cost him his life was an example of this (Acts 21:1-14). He took that fateful trip against clear warning. He did so for the sake of the health of the Church as a whole—
specifically the uniting together of Jews and Gentiles. Searching out a solid connection between

the task we will be charged with and the proclamation of the gospel will often shed light on the
wisdom of incurring personal risk.

CONCLUSION

Any service to our God involves risk on our part. The risk assumed by those who carry out the gospel directive is significant, even at home in the US. Therefore, the Lord’s leading must be prayerfully sought out by individuals who might be involved in such efforts, and by their guardians. A policy and procedure cannot take the place of this individual process. Where the Lord’s leading is present in an individual’s life, they must entrust their safety and well-being to Him. Those in their family must do the same. What they must avoid is the greater risk of not being willing to go to the place that God wants them in. Throughout Scripture this failure is presented as of greater consequence than that of even the loss of one’s physical life.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

This is both an interesting and important issue, because it has to do with the cause of sin and immorality in the lives of Christian people. Why are our news broadcasts and newspaper headlines constantly telling us of the inconsistencies and outright moral failures of Christian people? The Bible teaches that the source of their sordid failings is “the flesh.” Therefore, understanding “the flesh” will help us successfully deal with our own failures and with the failures of those we think should never fail.

The precise meaning of the biblical term “flesh,” especially as used by Paul in the New Testament, is a fairly complex issue. A false understanding can lead to some very dangerous conclusions. Yet there is room for disagreement. Legitimate differences in views exist among evangelicals. We believe the importance of the issue requires us to lay down some broad parameters we wish to stay within while considering this concept of “the flesh.” After making some general observations regarding the term, we will then state what it is we affirm and then certain concepts about “the flesh” we would want to avoid teaching at Red Mountain. Our intent is to provide a biblical understanding of the source of sin within us so that we can lead more holy lives.

“The flesh” is not understood by simply looking up the definition of the Greek word. In fact, it is precisely the breadth of the term’s meaning that has led to much misunderstanding of it. In Scripture this Greek word can mean one of several things. It can be used to speak of meat or muscle tissue. It can mean the physical body. It can refer to this earthly life. Finally, it can be used of the sinful urges that reside within us. Regarding this last usage, the NIV uses two words, “sinful nature,” to translate the Greek word for “flesh” wherever they believe this meaning is in view. The reader should be aware of the fact that the original term is simply “flesh.” “Flesh” then, can mean anything from physical tissue to an ethical force living within us. Because this word is used in a number of ways, the context surrounding each usage must be carefully considered. It is only then that the precise meaning in view in each particular passage of Scripture can be established with a measure of confidence, and from there an accurate understanding of the cause of sin in our lives can be constructively pondered.

WHAT WE AFFIRM

1. The Christian is a new creature in Christ and has a new nature, which is not sinful.
   When a person comes to Christ in faith, God gives that person a new spirit or a new nature. In the past, this person was opposed to the things of God. Now, a big change has taken place. In their inmost being, he or she wants only to please God. This new desire is one of gifts we receive from God when we are born again. When the new believer tries to act on this new desire, however, he or she will meet external resistance from the world and internal resistance from the flesh.
2. All Christians still deal with sin because of their “flesh.”
   The presence of the new nature in the life of the believer does not remove the tendency to sin. This tendency to sin is what the apostle Paul called the “flesh.” Both Romans 7 and 1 John 1:8 make it clear that every Christian must continue to deal with sin in their life. If we say we have no sin, we delude ourselves, and we ignore the truth to our own peril. By ignoring our sin, we open ourselves to its dangers even more. We must face our sin and confess if we are to have victory over it.
3. When used in its ethical sense in scripture, “flesh” refers to that power within us that leads us to sin.
   The word flesh in this sense represents everything that is wrong in us, everything that remains hostile to God (Romans 7:18 and 8:7). It is that force or tendency within us that continues seek our own will and resist God’s will. Some understand the flesh to be our old nature, that is, our natural self before being saved. The believer is seen, then, to have two natures, the old and the new. However, we think it best to say that the believer has but one nature, the new nature. The flesh, then, is best viewed as a sort of hangover or infection left over from our old life before salvation. This hangover or infection affects our whole being, save our new nature or spirit.
4. Victory over the flesh can be experienced as we grow in faith and obedience.
   Thanks be to God; we are no longer under condemnation because of Jesus Christ. We are now set free from the law of sin and death.

   “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:1-2).

   By the new spirit God has placed within us we now have a right desire to please God. By the Holy Spirit who indwells us we now have the power to obey God and avoid sin. As we grow in faith and practice of obedience, allowing the Holy Spirit more and more control over our lives, we experience more and more victory over sin and the flesh.

5. Total sanctification, or moral perfection, is not possible in this life.
   Although growth is possible, and really to be expected in a healthy Christian life, the
   goal of perfection is not attainable in this life. As long as we live in these mortal bodies, sin is a reality we must deal with (see point 2). Perfection is the goal we strive for and by the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit we can make progress toward that goal. Yet we will reach that goal only when we pass on to the next life.
6. Believers will be released completely and thoroughly from the power of the flesh when this mortal life ends.
   When this mortal life is done, and the mortal takes on immortality, we shall finally be delivered from the presence of sin. We will no longer be in a sinful environment and the internal tendency to sin (i.e. the flesh) will be finally and completely removed. We will be made fit to live forever in the Lord’s presence, clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Our redemption will be finally complete.

CONCEPTS TO AVOID

1. The physical body is inherently evil: The scriptures refer to our physical bodies as being
   weak and susceptible to evil influence. However, it categorically does not characterize the
   physical body or physical nature as evil in itself. The physical world was originally good
   at creation and it will be recreated good as well. The resurrection body will be some sort
   of physical body. Our physical nature in and of itself is not evil but it is weak and easily
   succumbs to sin’s temptation and becomes an instrument for sin.
2. An ascetic lifestyle (beating the body, denying oneself material goods, etc.) leads to
   holiness: While fasting and other forms self-denial are useful disciplines for promoting
   spiritual growth, self-denial in and of itself produces nothing. Neither does it make us more
   holy nor does it earn us favor with God. For self-denial to be productive spiritually it must
   be coupled with a positive spiritual goal. For example, abstaining from food in order to give
   to the poor or to better focus our attention on the Lord or a specific issue He is having us
   deal with.
3. “The flesh,” however it is understood, as an excuse to deny personal responsibility for sin:
   Just as Flip Wilson used to say, “The Devil made me do it,” some Christians might like to
   say, “My flesh made me do it,” absolving themselves of any personal responsibility for their
   sin. Scripture is clear, however, that we are still responsible for our sin. Though both the
   world and our flesh pull us in the direction of sin, the decision to sin is ours and ours alone
   and we must own it. If we fail to own it, we will fail to take the steps to correct it (see point
   2 in the previous section: What we affirm).
4. Believers can attain perfection (being without sin), in this life: See point five above.
   “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us: (1 John 1:10)

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG

During the past several decades the subject of women in ministry has been much debated in Christian circles. There has been some very important scholarship on this particular subject during that time and in the wake of it, significant movement in terms of the ministry roles occupied by women. What follows expresses the position of the Elders of Red Mountain Community Church on the matter as a result of our prayers and study on the subject. To begin with, we will state our position in a short paragraph, and then in ensuing paragraphs we will deal with some of the specific scriptural issues we have worked through on this matter over the years.

We believe that women have been equipped by the Holy Spirit not only for meaningful ministry but for roles of leadership in the particular ministries of our Church under the umbrella of the teaching authority of the Elders. We believe that this expresses the intent of the commands of Scripture as they are brought to bear on our specific culture. Therefore, while we adhere to what we feel is the Biblical teaching that a Church should be led by male Elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7), under the direction of the Holy Spirit we freely empower women to serve as Pastors who work under the umbrella of the Elder’s authority where that seems to be in accordance with the leading of our Lord.

AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

The position stated above emerges clearly from scripture when we understand the distinction between office and ministry. A biblical office is a position of responsibility and authority, a trust or duty assigned by the church to a person to be performed for the common good. The scriptures delineate two offices within the church, that of elder and that of deacon. The office of elder is the highest office. Elders have the responsibility of overseeing all aspects of the church’s ministry. The function of the office of deacon is to assist the elders in carrying out the ministry to the congregation and to assist the congregation in carrying out their ministry to each other and the community. The scriptures enumerate specific qualifications for those who wish to occupy these two offices in 1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Peter 5:1-4 and Acts 6. The passage in 1 Timothy clearly limits the office of elder to men while leaving the office of deacon open to both men and women. (The term “wives” in 1 Timothy 3:8 in the NIV may also be translated “deaconess.”)

By contrast, a ministry is any function carried out by any believer that builds up the church. Examples of ministry are teaching Sunday school, serving in the nursery, visiting a shut-in, cooking a meal, etc. Ministry flows naturally out of giftedness and since all believers are gifted by the Holy Spirit all are expected to minister in some capacity (1 Corinthian 12:3-7). If you are gifted to teach you are expected to teach and if you are gifted to serve you are expected to serve, each according to his or her own measure of faith (Romans 12:3-8). Throughout the New Testament gifts and ministries are listed without regard to gender (see Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:3-11 and 28-30, Ephesians 4:7-13, and 1 Peter 4:7-11). Thus gifts and ministries are not gender specific. All types of ministries are open to both men and women according to their particular gift or gifts. All believers are ministers of the church but only a relative few hold office in the church.

The duties of elders in overseeing the church revolve around two main areas: the spiritual health of the church and the soundness of its doctrine. The elders are involved then in pastoral care, keeping watch over the souls entrusted to them (Hebrews 13:17), tending, shepherding and feeding the flock (Acts 20:28), and leading by example (1 Peter 5:1-3). Elders are also engaged in teaching by guiding and guarding all the teaching that takes place in the church. The elders are responsible to make sure the church’s doctrine remains pure and that its members are able to discern and refute error (Titus 1:9).

While elders are mainly involved in pastoring and teaching, they are not the only ones who do so. All those who are so gifted will participate in teaching and shepherding, regardless of office or position, lay or paid staff. The office of elder is unique in that they are given authority and responsibility to oversee all such ministry. All who minister within the church do so under the authority and guidance of the elders, regardless of gender. Both men and women may be gifted to do either pastoring and/or teaching and there are examples of each in scripture. In Romans 18:26, Pricilla (named first) and Aquila teach Apollos, who is himself a teacher, the way of Christ more accurately. In 1 Corinthians 11:5, women are allowed to prophesy. There are many examples of women fulfilling significant ministry roles in the Gospels, e.g., Luke 8:1-3, John 4:39-42 and Matthew 28:1-10.

On the face of it then, it appears that the Bible leaves open the possibility of women being pastors and teachers, these being ministries not offices. In our culture today, however, this confronts us with a difficulty due mainly to language. That difficulty is that we have come to equate the terms “pastor” and “elder.” If this is true and we hold that elders must be men, then the title of “Pastor” could only apply to men. We have tried to show here, however, that biblically these terms are not equivalent. Pastor refers to a particular type of ministry whereas elder refers to an authoritative office charged with oversight of the Church. A pastor may indeed be an elder but not necessarily so. Based in part on this biblical data, Red Mountain has Elders who have been given authority and entrusted with the responsibility of all matters of the Church. The Elders have hired pastors, both male and female, who function as deacons carrying out the directives and vision of the Elders, ministering under the umbrella of their authority. It is our belief that it is wise and appropriate that the position of lead pastor (i.e. that pastor charged with the responsibility of preaching on a regular basis) be an Elder, as this position contributes significantly to the overall guidance and pastoral care of the entire church. This means that the particular position of lead pastor is not open to females. This does not rule out, however, the occasional preaching by a non elder, male or female, all being done under the direction and authority of the elders.

SPECIFIC SCRIPTURAL DATA

Having stated this position, how do we view Scriptures that seem to clearly prohibit women from a leadership role or speaking role in the Church? The following will attempt to give an overview of our understanding of these Scriptures.

The primary scriptures cited on this subject are 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

Examined alone, with no consideration for what has been said earlier in Paul’s letter, these words are a prohibition against women uttering even a sound. If we look at these words in this way, isolating them from the rest of the book, their meaning is plain. Women should not be allowed to say a word. However, we must remember that no Scripture stands alone. This meaning, that women are not to speak at all in the church, has been embraced by many over the centuries even though it plainly contradicts what Paul has allowed in his earlier instructions in chapter 11 (1 Corinthians 11:6). Clearly in that passage he allowed women to prophesy, but commanded that their heads be veiled when they did so. So they were allowed to speak words of prophesy
in the church, but were to do so with veils in place over their heads. Now if Paul was going to prohibit women from speaking later in his letter, why would he go to the trouble of giving them these instructions on what to wear when prophesying? It seems that it would be a moot point. It appears that to take these words in chapter 14 as meaning that women should never be allowed in any situation to speak in the church is to misinterpret them.

Now since these words cannot be taken in this sense without making the book contradictory, how are we to take them. What precisely was Paul prohibiting in giving these instructions? The answer to this question can be found in the customs that were observed in the Jewish Synagogue. We know that the synagogue was perhaps the most important force, next to the Holy Spirit Himself, in shaping early church polity. We know that in the Synagogue, there was a time in the meeting when men were allowed to ask questions regarding what had been taught on that particular occasion. The questions could even be antagonistic and aggressive in nature, contesting the statements of the speaker. The discussions were often quite spirited. But women were not allowed to take part in these particular exchanges; it was considered a usurpation of male headship. We believe that Paul, in a desire to affirm and reinforce male headship, was following the custom of the Synagogue, restricting women from publicly calling into question the ideas and thoughts of the speaker during the church service. He was not closing off to them the opportunity to participate in the normal exercise of the various spiritual gifts. It seems to us that this fits best with the instructions of the entire book. It also seems likely in view of the statement that follows, “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home.” We believe that to interpret this passage as a prohibition against woman speaking in a public assembly in all circumstances is a direct contradiction to what Paul has earlier allowed (see his instructions in chapter 11).

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

The first thing we should note is that in the culture of our day these look like very confining words that box women into a very narrow role. In our culture we would tend to notice the words quietness and submission in that sentence. In the culture of the hearers, that a woman should learn was a progressive idea. Among the writings of the rabbis of the time we find these words, “A woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” In other words, they should stick to sewing! These words are also found, “Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” Against this trend of the devaluation of women, Paul is affirming the value of educating them in spiritual things, as fellow members of the body of Christ, while having them do so in a manner that would not totally offend the cultural sensitivities of the day.

As we look closer at 1 Timothy 2:11-12, we see that as in 1 Corinthians 14, “quietness” is the behavior called for. The word occurs in verses 2, 11 and 12. It is important to observe that the word rendered “quiet” in verses 4 and 11 and “silent” in verse 12 by the NIV in this passage is the same word, and is a different one than Paul uses in the 1 Corinthians 14 passage addressed above. The word used in 1 Timothy occurs only five times in the New Testament, only twice outside of these verses. We will look at the two usages outside this passage because they demonstrate two different shades of meaning that are possible in the word. Luke uses this word in Acts 22:2, where he describes the “silence” that comes over a noisy crowd. “When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.” Clearly in this context the word means no sound, a “hush,” with an accompanying ability to listen and give attention to spoken words. A different shade of meaning is in Paul’s mind when he uses the word in 2 Thessalonians.

“We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busy-bodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:12).

Here the NIV renders the word “quiet” with the English words “settle down.” This captures Paul’s meaning well. He means quiet in the sense of being settled, submitting oneself to a life routine as opposed to leading an undisciplined life. So outside of 1 Timothy, the word is used in the sense of silence by Luke, and in the sense of submission to a routine by Paul.

Which shade of meaning does Paul intend in his three usages of the word in 1 Timothy 2:2,11,12? Verse 2 is very straightforward, where the word is used to speak of a “quiet life,” meaning a peaceable life. But what of Verses 11 and 12? Verse 12 provides the answer. There he says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority, over a man; she must be silent.” Paul uses silent here to describe behavior that is the opposite of exercising authority over someone. Is absence of sound the best rendering, as in the NIV, or would a rendering that suggested “settling down” under the headship of those in authority be best? It seems to us that “to settle down” under the headship of those in authority in the church is what Paul was driving at rather than absolute silence. So as in the passage in 1 Corinthians 14, we believe that the goal of Paul’s instruction is not the absolute and utter silence of women, but their abstaining from those activities that would be interpreted in that time as casting aside the spiritual headship of the men. Very specifically in terms of “how church was done” at that time, they were to abstain from injecting themselves into the public discussion surrounding the shaping of belief and doctrine. They were not by these instructions prohibited from proclaiming and applying that doctrine. We recognize that the English translation in the NIV makes these words of Paul in 1 Timothy sound like absolute commands, particularly the phrase, “she must be silent.” In reality, the Greek grammar used in verse 12 does not demand that we take any of this as a charge or command. Paul’s words are in the indicative mood, not the imperative mood. This means that while they could be taken as a universal rule, it is more likely that they are to be taken as a simple statement of his present practice. So it is probable that the “commands” here are not command sat all but simple statements of what Paul has found a fitting practice in the culture of the day and that he is passing along his practice to Timothy. It would be legitimate to transliterate verse 12 as follows, “I am not permitting a woman to teach or govern men, but to be settled in under their headship.” We should note that in the next verse Paul makes a statement that re-affirms the ordination of male headship in the creation of Adam and Eve. Headship we believe is the principle of concern to him.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that both passages are primarily concerned with establishing practices in local churches that do not undermine God’s institution of the spiritual headship of man. This was to be accomplished by women not being involved in the public (and that’s an important word!) exchanges that went into the formulation or refutation of ideas, doctrines, and systems of belief. What then is the message of scripture to us in the 21st century at Red Mountain? There is no doubt as we see it, that God has ordained for His own reasons and purposes the spiritual headship of the man. He did so in the home. He did so in the government of Israel in the Old Testament. He did so in the governing of the church in the New Testament. We affirm this important principle that seems to us to exist throughout the various eras of God’s program on earth.

We believe that the Word of God dictates that principle. We believe however that culture dictates how this principle of male headship is expressed and affirmed, and that means there is variation from culture to culture across the centuries of time in the particulars of what is permissible for women in the church. In the times of Paul there were a number of ways in which the man’s headship in the home was expressed. An example was the covering, or veils that women wore over their heads. Paul believed that particular expression to be appropriate and so taught that it should be observed in the church as well (1 Corinthians 11:3-16). Christianity for the most part has set that custom aside, and we think rightly so, even though it is commanded in Scripture. The culture of that day drew much tighter and more visible lines than we are accustomed to in western culture today. It seems that Paul did not want Christians to ignore their culture, while at the same time he wanted to call them to observe within that culture the higher laws of mutual love, respect and submission that Christ restored. In the culture of his day, Paul could only allow the latitude outlined in the passages considered above from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, without undermining completely the idea of male headship. We believe that today in western culture, we can open the door considerably wider and still maintain the divine order of male headship in the governing of the Church.

As is the case with all truth, in “fleshing it out” we are forced to walk a narrow path. We must hang onto a principle our culture can’t wait to abandon, male headship. But our challenge is to embrace and express that truth in a way that conveys its essence (not its trappings) accurately to our culture. That is what our position seeks to do. We believe that males should occupy the office that is charged with the single role of teaching/governing the church and that this office is not opened to women. At Red Mountain that is the office of the Elders. Here, the pastors function as Deacons, under the umbrella of the Elders and are accountable to them. For this reason, we see it as permissible in terms of the Scripture to convey the title of pastors on women where that seems to be in accord with the Holy Spirit’s leading. These women then function as all pastors do, under the spiritual headship of the Elders.

RED MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CHURCH | RMCCHURCH.ORG