Was Lance Armstrong’s confession on Oprah that he took performance-enhancing drugs, right or wrong?

Was Lance Armstrong’s confession on Oprah that he took performance-enhancing drugs, right or wrong?

The big media news story of the last few weeks has been about Lance Armstrong the seven times Tour de France winner confessing to Oprah Winfrey (the agony aunt of America) that for years he took performance enhancing drugs. Armstrong also admits that he could never have won his seven tour de France titles without the drugs, and that he had been lying to many people for the last ten plus years. He acknowledges that he has put his friends and loved ones through much pain and torture.

Armstrong says that at the time he did not feel like he was cheating and that it appeared to him to be a “level playing field” because everyone else was doing it. I find this argument weak at best and morally corrupt at worse. This argument is what I have (unfortunately) come to expect from a naive teenager who justify their sexual promiscuity with the statement “everyone’s doing it” and not from a 41 yr old world class, multi millionaire athlete, father and husband.

However what I find somewhat grating is the moral hypocrisy from those in the media towards Armstrong’s confession. Some put forth various views that cast suspicion upon the authenticity of his confession. Some say he wants to compete again in triathlons, maybe even cycling. Whilst others say his confession is only because he was caught and that his decision to confess on Oprah was because she would give him an easy ride (no pun intended). Firstly at the age of 41 and having been out of any real competitive sport for the last 5 years I don’t think it is possible for Lance Armstrong to compete at any real serious level (unless he uses performance enhancing drugs, sorry couldn’t resist that one). Secondly was he actually really caught? Armstrong went on record to say that he had been tested more than any other cyclist in history and never tested positive. The only evidence against him came from former team mates who themselves confessed to taking drugs (and therefore implicating Armstrong) in return for light (6 months) punishment. I always find these scenarios akin to liars accusing other people of lying (how do you believe them). Thirdly I don’t buy the idea that confessing on Oprah was an easy option, I mean wouldn’t you rather confess to a priest / pastor in a small booth / office than on one of the biggest talks shows in media? I mean can you confess to any bigger audience in the world than Oprah’s? I think I am right in saying more people watch Oprah than the Tour De France? Whilst I accept that Oprah may be a more genial person to confess to (though her first question went for the jugular), surely human nature would rather confess to a friendly rather than fierce person?

I actually want to commend Lance Armstrong for his confession, on such a very public platform, (maybe others will be inspired to do the same?). This could not have been an easy decision. Apart from the fact he must of known he was going to be castigated by many, he has also opened himself up to numerous litigation cases being filed against him (already to the tune of £10m and rising). Many in his position would of kept up the pretence of the past ten years and taken their lies with them to their grave, leaving many in the public sphere still unsure of his guilt or innocence. No I think his confession was a very difficult decision to come to and will haunt him emotionally and financially for the rest of his life.

Yes he could have and should have confessed a lot earlier, but are we now saying that there comes a time when it is too late to confess? Ask the loved ones of those who have been murdered who have begged the killer to confess the whereabouts of their victim’s body for years. (Ask the relatives of the victims of the Moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley). Many in history have chosen in their dying moments that their ‘last words’ be a confession of a previous wrong. At least Armstrong did not wait that long (though I accept there maybe more to confess). Above all else I believe Armstrong proves that adage to be true and that is “confession is good for the soul”.

One of Jesus disciples wrote in 1 John 1:8-10 (NLT) ⁸ If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. ⁹ But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. ¹⁰ If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts.

Armstrong still has a long way to go to repair the damage he has done and if truth be told, for some nothing he ever does will be acceptable penance for his crimes. But here a little perspective is called for; he cheated in a bike race and made lots of money from it. I can think of many in the public eye who have fallen from greater heights and managed to redeem themselves in the public eye. I think of Bill Clinton using his political leverage to help re elect President Obama. Many feel he has redeemed himself by his recent years of charitable work. Maybe Armstrong’s great work in fighting cancer will help him to redemption and ‘livestrong’ at least in the eyes of God.

Why You Should (Definitely) Want Your Church to Grow

by Bill LaMorey

11 Comments

The title of this post alone will be sufficient to send some into a fit.
Why don't I up the ante and say I want to see our church outgrow our current location again, launch new church plants, and start new campuses.
Uh-oh, I just sent somebody into overload.
“C’mon church growth isn’t important…you shouldn’t be all about the numbers!” Wrong.
Numbers represent people, and people are the reason God sent Jesus on His redemptive mission to our planet!

Why do I want to see our church grow?

Because it means that:
More people will turn their lives over to Jesus (as long as we’re not just stealing sheep from other churches, which I’m really not interested in). Depopulating Hell gets me excited! Not to mention giving people the hope, healing, meaning, and purpose found in Jesus!!
More people will grow in their faith (you cannot grow spiritually mature apart from a local body of believers).
More people will get on mission to make a dent in serving and reaching out to the people in our community with tangible expressions of the love of Christ.
More people means more opportunities for current church members to serve and step into expanded roles of leadership (thus continuing their discipleship).

You see, I just have these crazy beliefs…

I believe to my core that the entire world needs Jesus desperately.
I believe that our church is a good place for people to experience God because Jesus is magnified, the Bible is taught, and God is honored.
I believe that God has assembled an amazing group of people: our staff, our volunteers; everyone! So I know that a new Christian comes into a loving, supportive environment.
I believe that church growth honors God (the Bible teaches we are to be faithful AND fruitful).
Because of my beliefs, I let go of my career path over a decade ago and committed to serving God fulltime. Therefore, I pour my all into what I do every single week. So OF COURSE, I want to see that my family and my church family are all making a difference with what we’ve committed our lives to!

My Motives?

Some will question the motive of me or others who also want their churches to grow. “You just want bragging rights…”
God knows my heart, so I won’t bother defending that. But can’t we learn a lesson from Paul and rejoice wherever Christ is made known instead of being caught up in someone’s motive?

“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. But what does it matter?…The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this, I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.” (Philippians 1:15, 18 NIV)

Lest I be too misunderstood, church growth has never been the measure of our success.
We look to “changed lives” as the metric for whether or not we are succeeding at our mission. This places us in dependence upon God’s Spirit because we’re not capable of changing anyone’s life.
However, the greater the number of people in your church, the greater opportunity there is for changed lives. So while church growth isn’t the measure of our success, it is a goal and something we desire and plan for without apology.

Share this:

Share on email Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin Share on evernote More Sharing Services

8 Principles for Churches That Want to Grow, by Mark Driscoll

When it comes to numbers, churches tend to err in one of two ways: They either discount them as unimportant, or they put too much emphasis on them.  The reality is numbers are important, and though they aren’t the only sign of a healthy church, they are an important measure.
For Mars Hill, numbers are a key measure of our health. For us, it’s all about the numbers, if by “numbers” you mean the number of people getting their sins forgiven, getting their lives changed by Jesus and going to heaven instead of hell. We’d like that number to go up. We’re all for that.
When numbers are viewed from this perspective, they are a good thing to desire to see grow. This is why I commend pastors who desire to see the church they pastor grow for the right reasons.

Don't Miss

• 23 Reasons for Rapid Church Growth
• 10 Enemies to Church Growth
• Overcome the 5 Barriers to Church Growth
• 4 Factors of Fast-Church Growth

In my conversations with pastors around the world, many have questions on church growth. So, I thought I’d share eight principles I’ve learned about church growth.

1. Begin with the end in mind and know how large you want to be.

The following is a rough breakdown of reported (which may not be entirely accurate) church attendance. Admittedly, these numbers are a few years old, but, as a general rule, they do give you a rough idea of church-size barriers.

• Churches with 45 people or fewer = 100,000 churches or 25% of all churches

• Churches with 75 people or fewer = 200,000 churches or 50% of all churches

• Churches with 150 people or fewer = 300,000 churches or 75% of all churches

• Churches with 350 people or fewer = 380,000 churches or 95% of all churches

• Churches with 800 people or fewer = 392,000 churches or 98% of all churches

• Churches with 800 people or more = 8,000 churches or 2% of all churches

• Churches with 2,000 people or more = 870 churches or 0.22% of all churches

• Churches with 3,000 people or more = 425 churches or 0.11% of all churches

Lyle Schaller, considered one of the best church consultants in the world, states in his book, The Very Large Church, that the two most comfortable church sizes are under 45 people and under 150 people, likely making them two of the hardest thresholds to pass through, in addition to the 800 mark.
In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell states 150 is also the maximum number of people someone can purposefully connect with, which explains why some people do not like bigger churches. It may also explain why John Wesley divided people into groups of about 150, the average hunter-gatherer village is about 150 people, most military units are under 200 and the Hutterites allow their communities to grow no larger than 150.
Understanding group dynamics like this is important in understanding there are significant challenges that come with each phase of church size, and being aware of where you want your church to grow allows you to begin preparing for those growth phases more effectively.

2. The larger the church, the more different it is from other churches of the same theology and tradition.

As a church grows, while the theology remains the same, the organization complexity doesn’t, often requiring new methods of ministry.
Size affects the number of lines of communication, how an organization stacks or does not stack leadership, access to the senior leader and family, etc.
Simply put, church size does matter for how a church is run. Much like a married couple, who some years later find themselves with a dozen children, cannot simply organize their life as they did with their first child—everything must change.
For those wanting to learn more about the dynamics of church size, Tim Keller has a helpful paper, and Larry Osborne has a helpful book called Sticky Teams.

3. Change is inevitable.

You either move forward or backward.
A living church changes differently than a dying church does, but all churches change.
For a church to grow, it must change. It does not need to change in theology, but it will need to change in methodology.
If a church is unwilling to change their methodology to reach and care for more people, then it is guilty of method-idolatry, which is where we confuse unchanging biblical principles with what are supposed to be changing cultural methods.

4. Don’t assign moral judgments to size and change.

People tend to wrongly attach a moral value to church size, which is unholy, unhealthy and unhelpful. This explains why big churches are accused of being uncaring and small churches are accused of not reaching people or being well led or organized.
I pastored Mars Hill when it was small and saw a lot of people saved by Jesus. And, now that Mars Hill is large, I’m certain we take far better care of our people with far better community than we did when we were small.
Many smaller church pastors, especially those who value theology well above ministry philosophy and size, tend to completely overlook or even deny the importance of church size. They will accuse those who care about numbers to be simply pragmatic, as if wanting more people to meet Jesus and grow in grace were a bad thing.
The reality is Jesus works through churches of all sizes, and if he should see fit to bless a church to grow bigger, that is not a bad thing but a good thing.

5. If you want to grow, you need to prepare for common changes now.

Here are few of the changes you’ll face as you grow:

• You move from managing workers, to leading managers, to leading leaders.

• Focus shifts from a survival-in-the-present mode to a success-in-the-future mode.

• Expectations move from informal to formal (elders, deacons and members).

• You have to grow from making decisions by general consensus to a handful of people making decisions.

• Communications becomes formal and written rather than informal and oral.

• People’s roles move from general responsibility to specialized responsibility.

• The church moves from being one community to being many communities (e.g., multiple services, community groups, etc.).

• The senior leaders shift their focus from being primarily caregivers to making sure people are being cared for by raising up leaders.

• The senior leader shifts from working in the organization to working on the organization.

• The members move from being connected to the pastor to being connected to other leaders.

• Focus shifts from drawing people through relationship to drawing them through events and dynamic Sunday services.

6. Be humble as a leader to seek the counsel of pastors ahead of you and receive their counsel.

Over the years, I’ve reached out to many godly pastors who oversee larger churches for advice and counsel as Mars Hill has grown.
Their friendship, advice, prayer and service to our church have been much appreciated and priceless. No man is an island, and it’s crucial to seek godly counsel and humbly receive it.

7. Discern between guilt and conviction in seasons of transition.

Developing this discernment is key, as you cannot do what everyone wants you to do and also do exactly what God calls you to do.
As the old adage goes, if you try to please everyone, you please no one.
Proverbs 29:25 says fear of man is a “trap” or a “snare,” depending upon your translation. Fear of man causes us to live for the approval of our tribe and to fear criticism or ostracism from our tribe. Fear of man is a form of idolatry—living to please someone other than Jesus Christ.
Ultimately, when you get to heaven, you’ll give account to Jesus for your decisions and actions as a pastor. Strive to be faithful to Jesus, not to the demands of people.

8. Pray and plan for people to meet Jesus.

As you often get what you pray for, you need to prepare for it.
Mars Hill has been blessed by God to see a great harvest over the years. Like any large harvest, there is much work to do and it is tiring.
As you pray for many people to meet Jesus, also prepare in faithful expectation for the work that will come if Jesus answers your prayer.

The good news is seeing many people meet Jesus, while demanding work, is the best kind of work there is.  

Stats show only ‘tiny’ proportion of UK is gay, lesbian or bisexual

The Office for National Statistics questioned hundreds of thousands of people in the research.

• One in 66 Britons is gay or bisexual – NOT one in ten, as previously thought (dailymail.co.uk, 29 September 2012)
• Rupert Everett opposes gay marriage, gets death threats (02 October 2012)
• Opposition to redefining marriage tops MPs’ postbags (01 October 2012)
• Ousted: Christian councillor gets boot over gay marriage (20 September 2012)
• Call for Equalities Minister to think again about gay marriage (19 September 2012)

Thu, 4 Oct 2012

Only 1.5 per cent of people in the UK are gay, lesbian or bisexual according to new official statistics – not the 6 per cent figure the Government usually claims.
The figure comes from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) which questioned hundreds of thousands of people in the research.
The ONS found 1.1 per cent said they were gay or lesbian, after speaking to around 545,000 adults.

Staggering

And after quizzing around 220,000 adults, the ONS found 0.4 per cent who said they were bisexual.
According to the study, 2.4 per cent of adults who live in London said they were gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Responding to the figures, and speaking in light of the Government’s plans to bring in same-sex marriage, Mike Judge of The Christian Institute said: “It is staggering that such a monumental change is being carried out on behalf of a tiny proportion of society.”

Opposition

Commenting on the new figures, Ben Summerskill of homosexual lobby group Stonewall, commented: “We reckon 6 per cent, the figure the Treasury has used for some time, is a sensible estimate.”
In 2003 the former Labour Government endorsed figures from Stonewall which claimed that between five and seven per cent of the population were homosexuals.
The coalition Government is pushing ahead with its plans to redefine marriage despite much opposition.
A number of Government ministers and MPs want to keep marriage as it is and a nationwide petition against homosexual marriage – organised by the Coalition for Marriage – has been signed by over 600,000 people.

Academic study of homosexuality and parenting.

Christianity Today, October, 2012

The CT Interview

The Regnerus Affair

The embattled sociologist talks to CT about the controversy over his study of homosexuality and parenting.

Interview by Katelyn Beaty [ posted 9/28/2012 ]

If you want to know how University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus's summer has gone, look no further than The Weekly Standard. On the cover of the conservative magazine's July 30 issue are two hooded henchmen impishly turning the gears on a medieval torture wheel holding Regnerus, sweating beads as he tries to stay in one piece. The cover copy—"Revenge of the Sociologists: The perils of politically incorrect academic research"—hints at the situation sparked by the publication of Regnerus's newest research as well as the broader political discourse over same-sex marriage.

 

The survey, known as the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), is remarkable in its scope. It's a random national sample, considered "the gold standard" of social science surveys. NFSS measures the economic, relational, political, and psychological effects on adults ages 18 to 39 who grew up in families where the father or mother engaged in homosexual behavior. Despite Regnerus's repeated caution that the NFSS does not account for stable same-sex marriages (since same-sex marriage as such didn't exist when the survey participants were children), he has undergone professional censure. Social Science Research conducted an internal audit on the peer-review process of the NFSS, and the University of Texas at Austin investigated Regnerus following allegations of "scientific misconduct." (The school has since cleared Regnerus of the allegations.) Regnerus agreed to an e-mail interview with Christianity Today associate editor Katelyn Beaty to set the record straight on the NFSS and its many discontents.

 

Other studies have been done on the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples, with many sociologists concluding there's no real difference between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by heterosexual couples. Why was the NFSS needed at this time?

Most family scholars had, until recently, consistently affirmed the elevated stability and advantages [for children] of the married, heterosexual, biological, two-parent household, when contrasted with all other family "makes and models." Other types of family arrangements were perceived to fall short—even if not far short—in a variety of developmental domains such as educational achievement, behavior problems, and emotional well-being.

 

For the children of gay and lesbian Americans, however, social scientists have largely shifted their sentiment. Since 2001, and picking up steam more recently, scholars have been increasingly quick to declare "no differences," and some have even moved to suggest that same-sex parents may be more competent than a man and woman in a traditional family arrangement. Ten years is pretty speedy to overthrow a long-stable paradigm, and frankly, some of us found it a bit suspicious, so we decided to look into it ourselves.

 

I don't think there is a time-sensitive component to this study, other than it was time to evaluate what had become a rapidly-shifting consensus on the subject.

 

How does your methodology compare with those used in previous surveys on this topic?

This is the key area of distinction between my study and most others. Almost all studies that came before this one were small and "nonrandom." That is, we have no idea how similar most other studies' research participants are to the general population they seek to study. And with many previous studies, I think it's fair to be skeptical. For example, if you know you're participating in a small study on gay parenting and that it'll make the news and perhaps have political ramifications, I think it's fair for scholars to wonder whether such a study will yield valid, reliable data.

'Ten years is pretty speedy to overthrow a long-stable paradigm, and frankly, some of us found it a bit suspicious, so we decided to look into it ourselves.' - Mark Regnerus

 

The NFSS, on the other hand, is much larger than most others, and is a random sample of the population of American adults ages 18–39. I focused not on their parents' sexual orientation—after all, it was a quite different era back then—but on their parents' relationship behavior. So I compared how young adults whose mothers or fathers had a same-sex relationship fared when analyzed alongside other types of arrangements, including the traditional, biologically intact married mother and father.

 

Explain briefly how you identified "lesbian mothers" and "gay fathers" in the study. These are not established same-sex couples who together chose to adopt or use IVF, correct?

If by "established" you mean stable couples present for their child's entire growing-up years: The data allowed for stably-coupled gay or lesbian parents to emerge, but at least in the era I am assessing, it was uncommon. Moreover, so was surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology (ART). These are all pretty expensive, even today. Another scholar writing on this subject notes that "the literature on same-sex-couple parenting has tended to feature studies of the kind of women who can afford ART: white, upper-middle-class women." But that is the media stereotype of gay and lesbian parents, even though data from the National Study of Family Growth reveal that they're less apt to want children than nonwhite gay and lesbian parents. So the types of couples you are referring to could be in the data, although I did not ask the respondents about the circumstances of their own birth.

 

From other questions—such as whether your biological mother and father were ever married—I can discern an educated guess about their origins. A majority of such respondents were the product of a heterosexual union that eventually disintegrated. Some suggest these were "mixed orientation marriages," but I wouldn't be so quick to presume that. While the etiology of homosexuality is not under study here, questions about my categorizations seem tacitly to raise the subject of who counts as a lesbian mother or gay father, to say nothing of bisexuality. The study is, however, about what its title states: the adult children of parents who have, or have had, same-sex relationships. In hindsight, I wish I would have been even more vigilant than I was in making sure readers always understood this.

 

What would you say to religious and political groups that promote traditional marriage and want to use the NFSS results to "prove" that parenting by same-sex couples is damaging to children?

I am neither a theologian nor politically oriented, so I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else how to do their jobs. While social science cannot "prove" things, it can describe social reality. What the NFSS does describe is that the young-adult children of men and women who have had same-sex relationships appear more likely to have experienced problems, and in some cases continue to struggle, than those whose biological parents were and are still married. Why exactly this is the case is an important question that should continue to be explored and debated.

 

What problems in particular do young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships encounter? Emotional, financial, spiritual?

They report a variety of challenges, especially if they witnessed elevated instability in their household. Most of them have seen some [non-parent adults] coming and going. Among other things, they are more apt to report financial and employment difficulties, to finish less schooling, feel more ambivalence about their family experiences while growing up, smoke more, have more run-ins with the law, and report more sexual partners and greater victimization than those children from biologically intact, stable marriages. I didn't include religion or spirituality in the published study.

'The study itself was neither intended to undermine nor to affirm any legal rights about same-sex marriage.' - Mark Regnerus

 

What are your personal convictions about marriage structures? Do those convictions introduce a bias into your research, as critics of late have charged?

 

Every researcher has biases. This is why good survey projects assure participants' anonymity and don't hint to their participants how they ought to answer. This helps allow social science to rise above the personal biases of researchers.

 

You note that every researcher has biases. How are biases informing the internal audit of your research currently being conducted by Social Science Research, specifically the person conducting the audit, sociologist Darren Sherkat? Didn't Sherkat, who supports gay marriage, publicly criticize your research before the start of the audit?

Yes. I won't fight fire with fire here, but that is true. And yet the audit concluded that the publication process for the study was not compromised. Scholars criticize each other all the time, but it seems to be more personal in this territory.

 

Does your study have anything to contribute to contemporary debates about the legalization and cultural acceptance of same-sex marriage—especially since the NFSS was retrospective?

 

The study itself was neither intended to undermine nor to affirm any legal rights about same-sex marriage. That said, the NFSS and other solid studies out there are a good source of information for orienting citizens, regardless of their own personal perspectives.

 

Looking back, do you think it was responsible as a researcher to receive funding for NFSS from the Witherspoon Institute and the National Organization for Marriage (nom)—two groups known for strong stances on traditional marriage?

 

No funding came from the National Organization for Marriage, but rather from the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. [Editor's note: Critics of the NFSS have linked Witherspoon and Bradley to nom because Robert P. George, nom's chairman emeritus, has strong ties to the two institutions that helped fund Regnerus's study.] As I've noted in the text of the study and elsewhere, I have always operated without strings from either organization. No funding agency representatives were consulted about research design, survey contents, analyses, or conclusions. Any allegations that the funders might have improperly influenced me are simply false.

 

How do you understand your calling as a sociologist? What does sociology offer to a broader society that other professions can't?

Among other things, good sociology investigates what culture is, how social structures work, how certain ways of thinking and acting become "normal," how institutions shape our lives, and how social change happens. This may sound abstract and dull, but it's really a fascinating and important way of seeing and thinking about the world and our own lives. Those who apply themselves to wrestling with these kinds of issues often discover how interesting and important sociological analysis can be. And in the process, they often come to understand much more fully their own personal life experiences.

Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today.

The Divorced Deacon Dilemma

by Joe McKeever

 

A safe course here would be to spend all our energies pursuing the multi-faceted question “Can a divorced person be a deacon?” and at the end, choose the safest and most reasonable exit without coming down on a firm position. But where’s the fun in that?

“Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”  (1 Timothy 3:11)
There it is. One simple sentence that has divided and perplexed and frustrated the Lord’s faithful people for eons.
Let’s state our position up front so there can be no doubt. As a general rule, divorce disqualifies a man from service as either a pastor or deacon. However, there are exceptions.
And by “exceptions,” I most definitely do not mean we must convene an investigating committee to search out the reasons for the man’s divorce and establish a) that he was sinned against or b) that he was unsaved at the time and has since come to the Lord. This kind of scrutiny over a person’s ancient history is outside the capability of any preacher on the planet. All we have to do is look at the Roman Catholic Church’s annulment processes to see a) how complex this can get and b) how hypocritical it all appears to the outside world. We will grant that their intent is good, but the product is a disaster.
The exception–that is, the divorced men who can be considered as deacons–applies when the divorce occurred decades ago and the man has lived an exemplary and godly life since.

Don't Miss

• Should I Divorce If I’m Miserable? Counseling the Suffering Spouse
• I Want a Divorce! Jesus vs. Religion
• Preaching On Divorce
• How to Help People Broken by Divorce

That’s where I am at the moment. Good people will agree and disagree, and I’m fine by that. We each have to come to our own conclusion as to the Lord’s will.
This is an emotional, volatile subject.
Yesterday, I posted this question on Facebook: “Can a divorced person be a deacon?” An hour later, we had over 40 responses. This morning, the number is approaching 150. And as one might expect, the answers were all over the map.
Few people are without an opinion on this subject.
Anyone who wishes to see just how explosive a subject this is should stand in a church business conference and make a motion that the church change its stance on divorce.
Either way, it doesn’t matter. If your church ordains divorced people, move that it reconsider. If your church opposes ordaining the divorced, move that it consider changing and begin ordaining them. Then, stand back and watch the fur fly.
One has to wonder why people feel more passionate about this subject than issues of greater weight such as abortion or integrity or morality or world missions or the displaced people of Sudan or the starving children of Central Africa.
For our purposes here, suffice it to say, “They do.” (Pastors, be forewarned!)

What about the “husband of one wife” passage?

The Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:12 is not a lot of help. It reads “one woman man” or can be interpreted “one wife husband.”
Is this a prohibition against polygamy? For a long time, I thought so. Then, reading everything I could find on the subject, I kept running into scholars who said, “Polygamy was never a problem in the early church.” They ruled that out, and I did too, although reluctantly.
Is the problem divorce? Evidently so.
As long as there have been humans and humans have been sinners, divorce has been with us. Our Lord said the Old Testament provision for it (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) was a concession to the hardness of people’s hearts (Matthew 19:8).
The prophet said God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16).  True, but we ask, who doesn’t?  I don’t know anyone who loves divorce.  Most divorced people hate it.  So to allow a divorced person to teach a Bible class or serve as a deacon (or even a pastor!) is not saying we love or approve of divorce or that we take it lightly.
The “husband of one wife” phrase requires interpretation, no matter what position we take.
Why? Because if taken literally as it stands, it would bar single men and widowers from serving as deacons. I don’t know anyone who wants to do that.  The phrase requires some context and “giving the sense” of its meaning (a reference to Nehemiah 8:8).

Does “common sense” bring anything worthwhile to the subject?

While some Christians reject divorced individuals as deacons because of this text, they have no trouble accepting people with all manners of sordid pasts so long as they have repented and been forgiven and proven themselves faithful.
A friend says a divorced man in his church told him, “I should have just shot my first wife. Then, I could have found a good lawyer and served maybe 5 years for manslaughter. After returning home, I would have walked the aisle of my church and rededicated my life to the Lord, and bingo–in time, I’m a deacon. All I did was to divorce her. Consequently, I’m permanently barred.”
Where is the logic in that?
A pastor’s wife sent me this note.
I’d like to play the devil’s advocate for a moment.
If a man killed his wife and served his time, then got his life right with Christ, could he be elected a deacon?
If a man was addicted to pornography and induced his wife to role-play with him, then he repented and he and his wife came to the Lord, can he be a deacon?
If a man had an affair with another woman, then repented and gave evidence he was genuinely changed, could he be a deacon?
Or say he lived as a homosexual and then God changed him.  Can he be a deacon?
But a man who was married and then divorced, who received counsel and asked for forgiveness for anything he’d done wrong, he cannot ever become a deacon?
What’s wrong with this picture?

What does Christian maturity and faithfulness say?

A pastor friend sent me a note. He said, “I used to have a man in my church who was mature and godly. He came to me privately on one occasion and said, ‘Pastor, if I should ever be nominated for deacon, quietly remove my name.’ He had been divorced early in life and was remarried. He said, ‘I’d rather be in submission to the Word than to hold any position in the church.’”
I said to my friend, “That fellow has just qualified as a deacon in any church I pastor!” Such a godly, submissive attitude commends him as few other things could.
By the same token, the person who grows angry over being unfairly treated on this issue is probably demonstrating he is not qualified in other areas (spiritual maturity being the big one).
When other pastors and I have sat around the table working on this subject, eventually someone will say, “Even though it does seem we discriminate against the divorced person more than others, the point is to uphold the sacredness of marriage. I think the person ought to ‘take it on the chin’ in the interest of the Kingdom.”
After all, someone will add, there is nothing in any church’s bylaws to prohibit a member from serving God’s people in Jesus’ name. And that’s all deacons are–servants. And you don’t have to be ordained to serve.
True enough.
One of my friends said, “When in doubt, I try to err on the side of conservatism.” Another responded, “When I’m in doubt, I want to err on the side of grace.”
Grace. That’s what we are about, isn’t it?

What should your church do?

I’ll tell you what it should not do. It should not change its present policy hastily without a great deal of prayer and study and deliberation.
The tendency is for a church to do whatever its pastor says, particularly if he is strong-willed and takes no prisoners when presenting his position on controversial issues. This is not a good approach, as it leaves the church vulnerable to the next strong-armed leader who shows up with a contrary agenda.
The church should not throw out all prohibitions against divorced men (or women) serving as deacons simply because such a position is politically unpopular and attracts the criticism of the world. Fear is no reason to do anything in the Lord’s church.
The pastor who feels his church has the wrong position on this issue–regardless of which side he takes–will want to proceed with caution. This is not worth dividing a congregation over.  As my pastor says, “I am not willing to die on that hill.”
The first step should be lots and lots of prayer, seeking the Lord’s will and leadership in how to proceed as well as asking for more light on the issue itself. (One Facebooker said rather harshly that we should quit asking one another what we think and everyone get off the computer and on our knees. I don’t doubt the Lord could deliver His will to us on this and any other matter by dropping it out of the sky fully developed and hand-written, but that’s not been my experience. The Lord wants us to prayerfully discuss such issues and to do so in the spirit of love.)
After a season of prayer, as the Lord leads, the pastor may want to teach 1 Timothy, verse by verse. Or he may choose to present a series of sermons or studies on church leadership, any of which would get him to Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3.
Prayer, teaching, and then discussion. Lots of openhearted talk in the spirit of love.
Finally, wait on the Lord. And do nothing until He has made His will clear to the great host of the church’s most faithful.
Praying, teaching, talking, and waiting. Following these four steps could resolve most of the church’s mistakes, heal its ills, and answer its questions.
The church has long been plagued and hampered by leaders who stood up in the flesh, preaching and promoting positions rooted in their own convictions and based on their dubious interpretations of Scripture, insisting on getting their way, and dismissing all dissenters. We’ve had quite enough of that and don’t need any more.
Let us go forth in love and faithfulness, encouraging one another, and shying away from anyone or anything that would divide the Lord’s body over minor matters. 

Should Churches talk about or celebrate numbers?

I was recently pondering our churches numerical growth (or lack of it!) and was thinking of how our church could break through the 500 barrier.

For a number of months our Sunday morning attendance has fluctuated between 380 and last Sundays 460 ( David Pawson revival).

Why is it that we seem to struggle to break through this barrier of 500 people in church, especially as we have a abuilding that can accommodate 900 people??

So I decided to start a preaching series from the book of Acts 2:41 called "breaking the 500 barrier". What is so amazing (to me at least) is how important numbers are in the Word of God, there is even a book called 'Numbers'.

In a world in which we are constantly being told about the deline in church attendance, we need to contend for numbers of people coming to faith in Jesus Christ.

Steven Furtick: Why We're All About the Numbers • 07/31/2012

 

It’s unacceptable to me as a pastor that we would stop growing when the Lord wants to add to our number daily those who are being saved.

I get asked all the time if Elevation is all about the numbers.
Let me just clarify something:
Our church is all about the numbers.

The number of lives that Jesus can permeate and penetrate with the gospel.
The number of marriages that can be restored.
The number of teenagers following the Lord.
The number of depressed people that can find hope in Jesus.
The number of dads who don’t give their kids any attention who will learn to order their lives by the Word of God and start prioritizing their families.

What else matters? What else should we be about?

This might come as a shock to a lot of people, but measuring numbers and putting an emphasis on them isn’t a new phenomenon. 2000 years ago, Luke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote:

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day ... And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

- Acts 2:41, 47

Apparently God is all about the numbers. So I want to be, too. And so should you.

It’s unacceptable to me as a pastor that we would stop growing when the Lord wants to add to our number daily those who are being saved. And in order for that to happen, we need to track every scrap of statistical data at our disposal. We’ve got to make sure we’re measuring ministry numbers to measure our effectiveness and enlarge the Kingdom of God. I don’t want to waste a single dollar or second on a program, piece of equipment, or ministry position that isn’t the best option for reaching the most people.

You might be averse to numbers for a number of reasons.

Maybe you don’t like the idea of big crowds. If that’s the case, you wouldn’t have liked the New Testament Church. And you really won’t like heaven.

Maybe you think it steals away from discipleship. It’s possible. But it’s just as possible for that to happen in a church of 10 people as it is in a church of 10,000.

Whatever your reason is, remember: every number is indicative of a story.
Personally, I don’t want to put a cap on the number of stories God wants to redeem. Especially when I read this:

I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count. And they cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God.” - Revelation 7:9-10

Now that’s a number worth shooting for. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to wait until I die to see this. I want to see this partially fulfilled in my lifetime. More people worshipping Jesus than I can count.

I want to see a little heaven on earth through Elevation Church. Through every church. I think it’s what God wants too.

And that’s why we’re all about the numbers.