REVIEWS

LEADERSHIP | REVIEWS

Evangelism and Compassion in Missions

By GEORGE P. WOOD

What is the relationship between evangelism and compassion in the Church’s mission?

Historically, Pentecostals prioritized evangelism. Pentecostal missionaries believed the Spirit called and empowered them to proclaim the gospel and plant indigenous churches in cultures where Christ was not known.

Pentecostals more recently have advocated a holistic understanding of missions that puts evangelism and compassion on equal footing. This understanding of missions focuses on Christ’s proclamation of the kingdom of God, which touches on the whole of human existence — spiritual and material.

In The Missionary Spirit, Jerry Ireland argues that Pentecostals need to reclaim prioritism. He is a professor of theology and intercultural studies at the University of Valley Forge in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, an ordained Assemblies of God minister, and a former missionary to Africa.

It is easy to mischaracterize prioritism as advocating evangelism at the expense of compassion. That is not Ireland’s position, nor was it the position of historic Pentecostal missiology. For Ireland, prioritism is less about what should be done than about who should do what.

Ireland draws on Ralph Winter’s distinction between “modality” and “sodality” to make this

point. For Winter, both “the denomination and the local congregation” are examples of a modality, while a “missions agency” or “missionary band” are examples of a sodality. Modality and sodality together constitute “the New Testament church.” Winter’s distinction is not without controversy, but Ireland points to Acts 13 as an illustration of it. That chapter distinguishes “the church at Antioch” from “Barnabas and Saul,” whom the Antioch church “set apart” for “the work” the Spirit had called them to perform (verses 1,2). That work involved proclaiming the word of God among Jews (verses 5,14) and Gentiles (verses 46–48). All this took place under the guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit (verses 2,4,9). JERRY M. IRELAND For Ireland, a modality like the Antioch church has broader responsibilities than a sodality like the Paul and Barnabas missionary band. A local congregation performs both evangelism and compassion within its cultural context. Missionaries, on the other hand, cross cultures to establish indigenous churches Evangelism and Social Action in where Christ is not known.

Pentecostal Missiology In other words, the modality practices holism, the sodality prioritism. Underlying this distinction about who does what is a nuanced theology of the Holy Spirit as the driving force in missions. In Acts especially, the Holy Spirit calls and empowers missionaries to cross cultural boundaries, proclaim Christ, and establish indigenous churches. Ireland points at “the missionary nature of tongues” throughout Acts and argues that glossolalia “orients the church to the nations and emphasizes its proclamational role.” Ireland concludes The Missionary Spirit by arguing that prioritism leads to more effective compassion than holism. Too often, international compassion ministries breed dependence on Western

donors rather than empowering indigenous peoples to meet their own needs in culturally appropriate, sustainable ways. Ireland argues that missionaries prioritizing evangelism and discipleship solve this problem by preparing indigenous believers to become the primary agents of compassion in their own contexts.

I have friends on both sides of the prioritismholism debate, including Ireland and many of the Pentecostal thought leaders he critiques through this book. Because of this, I hesitate to put my thumb on the scale in favor of either position. That said, I found The Missionary Spirit to be a theologically nuanced argument for prioritism that is well worth reading.

In the end, whether you or I agree with Ireland, he is asking the right questions. As Pentecostals, are we flagging in our efforts to proclaim the gospel and plant churches in cultures where Christ is not known? And do our compassion ministries unwittingly breed dependence rather than empower indigenous peoples?

If the answer to either question is “yes,” we’ve got work to do.

Book Reviewed

Jerry M. Ireland, The Missionary Spirit: Evangelism and Social Action in Pentecostal Missiology, American Society of Missiology Series, No. 61 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2021).

Consuming News Christianly

By GEORGE P. WOOD

APew Research Center report about U.S. media polarization and the 2020 election found that “Republicans and Democrats place their trust in two nearly inverse news media environments.” Tell me whether a person watches Fox or CNN, in other words, and I’ll tell you how they likely vote. Victor H. Lindlahr said, “You are what you eat,” but when it comes to media, you are what you read or watch.

The fact that partisanship and news sources track so closely is worrisome. Are our opinions shaped by which channels we watch? Then we are too passive. Do our opinions decide which channels we watch? Then our problem is confirmation bias. Either way, we need to engage media more critically.

As Christians, that means we need to engage it more theologically. In Reading the Times, Jeffrey Bilbro outlines “a practical theology of the news.” He focuses on three themes in particular: attention, time and community.

According to a 2021 Nielsen report, the average U.S. adult spends 10 hours daily on media of some form. The amount and variety of information consumed forces the first question Bilbro asks, “To what should we attend?” We cannot read the news theologically without determining what’s worthy of our attention. A second theme revolves around the question, “How should we imagine and experience time?” Greek distinguishes between kairos (“propitious time”) and chronos (“quantifiable duration”). Bilbro argues that Christians need a “figural imagination” that interprets chronos in terms of kairos. As Karl Barth advised his students, “Take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both. But interpret newspapers from your Bible.”

The final question a theological reading of the news asks is, “How should we belong to one

another?” Bilbro argues that “media technologies and institutions have reconfigured social belonging.” Thus, Fox-watching Republicans may feel closer to other Fox-watching Republicans they’ve never met than to their next-door neighbors who are CNN-watching Democrats. (And vice versa.)

“If the problem is that our belonging to one another has become increasingly mediated through the media and the public sphere,” Bilbro writes, “the solution may be to root our fundamental commitments outside this space.” A good start would be simply to turn off the TV and go talk to your neighbor.

At 200 pages, Reading the Times is a brief book, but don’t mistake brevity for shallow analysis. Bilbro mines the Bible, theology, classic literature, and history to explain why our media consumption is hurting us, how we came to this crisis, and what Christians can do differently to help make things better.

Book Reviewed

Jeffrey Bilbro, Reading the Times: A Literary and Theological Inquiry into the News (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021).

GEORGE P. WOOD is executive editor of Influence magazine.

Recommended Reading for Leaders By INFLUENCE MAGAZINE

No Longer Strangers

Eugene Cho and Samira Izadi Page, editors (Eerdmans)

Christians in America send missionaries around the world. Increasingly, the world’s immigrants and refugees are coming to America. This presents Christians with an evangelistic opportunity. To practice “effective, healthy, and restorative discipleship and evangelism,” the authors urge Christians to understand the “cultural, social, and economic dynamics” of the immigrant experience. Such evangelism and discipleship incorporates mutual relationships, compassionate help, and organic spiritual conversations. Love Them Anyway

Choco De Jesús (Charisma House)

“The currency of the kingdom of God isn’t prayer, Bible study, missions, or service; it’s love,” writes Choco De Jesús. “All the disciplines are means to put us in touch with the love of God so it overflows into the lives of those around us.” De Jesús explains why American culture has become deeply polarized and offers Bible-based, experience-tested advice about how to see and treat people on the other side of issues as Jesus would — with both grace and truth. Becoming All Things

Michelle Ami Reyes (Zondervan)

According to the apostle Paul, Christian missions requires cultural adaptability: “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). Michelle Ami Reyes explains what cultural adaptability is, why it’s necessary, and how to do it well. “To be all things to all people means showing Christ in ways that make sense to the other person, not in whatever makes us most comfortable,” writes Reyes.

the

Why we need integrity to see God at work

By RYAN POST

By RYAN POST

Somewhere around the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, a massive crowd begins to gather around Jesus. Reports of His miracles have been spreading.

Jesus pulls away from the throng and climbs a nearby mountain. Finding a suitable place, He sits down to signify He is about to teach. With His newly chosen disciples assembling around Him, Jesus begins what would become known as the Sermon on the Mount.

This is no ordinary teaching session. It is the most complete sermon of Jesus recorded in Scripture. It is His manifesto. And for those of us who call ourselves followers of Jesus Christ, we must pay special attention to this famous discourse. We must not ignore it, soften it, or domesticate it in any way.

Through this magnificent sermon, Jesus reveals God’s true intention for human life and society. He shares His vision for a new culture of Jesus people.

Jesus opens His sermon by giving a collection of eight statements we call the Beatitudes. Contrary to popular understanding, the Beatitudes are not advice or instruction. They are not commands. Nor are they formulas for success. The Beatitudes are simply announcements.

Through these eight statements, Jesus identifies the kinds of people who will receive the arrival of this Kingdom as good news. And right in the middle of them, Jesus makes an announcement that will become a recurring theme throughout His entire ministry: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8).

God at Work in Jesus

Essential to orthodox Christian faith is the confession of the divinity of Christ. Jesus of Nazareth was not merely a religious guru, a prophet, an enlightened teacher, or an ideal moral example to follow. The consistent claim of the New Testament is that He is the unique, eternal, divine Son of God.

Jesus said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Hebrews 1:3 affirms Jesus is “the exact representation” of God’s being. Paul put it this way: “The Son is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).

Our English word “incarnation” comes from the combination of two Latin words: in (meaning “in”) and carnis (“flesh”). It is from the Latin word carnis that we get the modern Spanish word carne (“meat” or “flesh”). Jesus is God in the flesh — God incarnate.

As Jesus launched His ministry and began traveling throughout Galilee, people marveled at the unusual work of God that was happening through this mysterious man. Not quite sure what to make of Jesus, the crowds were always speculating about His identity and role within the scope of Israel’s prophetic story. Many quickly concluded the hand of God was upon Him. But not everyone was able to see God at work in Jesus. There was a particular religious party in first-century Israel known as the Pharisees. The Pharisees were a sizable faction who promoted moral and religious purity within the Jewish world. They believed this state of purity would somehow be the impetus for God to deliver Israel from enemy occupation and restore its sovereign identity. In all of Israel, the Pharisees were held in the highest regard for their commitment to honoring God. Yet oddly enough, when God incarnate showed up in their midst, they fiercely opposed Him. In a particularly memorable example, the people brought to Jesus a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute. According to Matthew 12:22–24, “Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, ‘Could this be the Son of David?’ But when the

Just as zipping Pharisees heard this, they said, ‘It is only by up a suit cannot turn a Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that this fellow drives out person into a demons.’” Consider the irony circus animal, here. The accusation merely putting that Jesus was demon possessed revealed on the trappings of religion the spiritual blindness of His accusers. And it happened in response never made to Jesus curing an actual demoniac of anyone godly. physical blindness. How could this group with a reputation for religious devotion fail to recognize the work of God through the divine Son?

What kept the Pharisees spiritually blind was not sin, per se. After all, everyone who encountered Jesus was a sinner in some fashion. In fact, many who were considered sinners celebrated His arrival and received the good news of the Kingdom. What blinded these religious experts from seeing God at work in Jesus was a particular category of sin. Theirs were sins of externalism: hypocrisy, judgmentalism, and religious pride.

Religious Externalism

There is a funny story about a man who was searching for some way to supplement his income and save his farm during the Great Depression.

One weekend, a traveling circus stopped in his town. The farmer went to the circus manager and said, “I’ll do anything you need. I just need some extra money.”

The circus manager didn’t hesitate.

“I’m going to turn you into a star,” he said. “Our gorilla died last week. He was a big part of the show. And in these tough economic times, we cannot afford to import another one. So, we would like you to wear a gorilla suit and perform the gorilla act.”

Desperate for cash, the farmer agreed.

Every night a rope hung near the lion’s cage. At the climax of the show, the fake gorilla was to grab the rope and swing over the lion several times while throwing bananas. The crowds loved it.

After a couple of nights, the farmer was beginning to enjoy the applause. One evening, he decided to improve on the act and beat his chest like a real gorilla. But the gesture caused his hand to slip from the rope, and he tumbled to the floor of the cage. The lion immediately pounced on him and let out a roar.

The terrified farmer screamed, “Help! Get me out of here! I’m going to die!”

Then the lion leaned forward and whispered, “Shut up, you fool! You’re going to get us both fired!”

Just as zipping up a suit cannot turn a person into a circus animal, merely putting on the trappings of religion never made anyone godly. The ever-present danger for those who begin the journey of faith is the potential to embody a sort of imitation Christianity, in which one bears all the external markers of Christian commitment but neglects to pay attention to the deeper issues of the soul. To follow this route is to venture off the path of Calvary and onto the broad road of religious pride and hypocrisy.

This shift into externalism is nearly imperceptible to the person involved, but it is toxic. While everything may look exactly as it should on the outside, there is a latent virus beneath the surface. And once it takes root, it can be spiritually devastating.

Jesus had a habit of exposing the externalism that existed in the lives of many of the Jewish leaders of His day. Each of His stinging rebukes were loving attempts to awaken them to their blind condition:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee!

First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Woe to you, teachers of the law and

Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness (Matthew 23:25–28).

Jesus similarly talked about externalism in the Sermon on the Mount. At one point, He applied the term “hypocrites” to those who drew attention to their practices of prayer, fasting, and generous giving so other people would praise them (Matthew 6:1–8,16–18).

In Matthew 15:7, Jesus used the word “hypocrites” to describe leaders who elevated religious traditions over the supreme responsibility of loving others. He then quoted from Isaiah: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules” (verse 8).

Jesus’ clashes with these leaders over their

objections to His acts of healing on the Sabbath repeatedly expose this deadly virus of religious hypocrisy. Jesus taught that the sum of the “Law and the Prophets” boils down to the commands to love God and love our neighbors (Matthew 22:37–40). Yet these leaders used adherence to religious standards to promote their own interests at the expense of others.

This condition of spiritual blindness is not something God had inflicted upon them. On the contrary, Jesus — who perfectly embodied God’s will — kept pleading with them in hopes they would eventually recognize their sinful state and repent.

Spiritual Sight

Imagine your inner life as having a window. Windows accomplish two things. First, a window lets in light. Second, a window provides a view of the world beyond the building’s walls. Thus, a window allows us to see both inside and outside.

But if the window is never cleaned, and grime is allowed to accumulate to the point that it eventually becomes caked over with filth, it will no longer serve any useful function. The inhabitants will live in darkness and will be unable to see through to the outside.

What we learn from Jesus’ interaction with these religious experts is that hypocrisy, judgmentalism, and religious pride keep us in spiritual blindness.

In John 9, one such confrontation occurred after Jesus healed a man who had been blind from birth. In that culture, it was commonly assumed blindness was a sign of God’s judgment. (See verses 2 and 34.) When some of the Pharisees learned of this man’s healing, they attempted to discredit Jesus and even called Him a sinner (verse 24).

In response, Jesus declared, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind” (verse 39).

This entire incident illustrates Jesus’ point. The man who was born blind received new sight, both physically and spiritually (verse 38). Yet the Pharisees who claimed to have pristine spiritual perception were unable to identify the Son of God even when He stood right in front of them.

Once the virus of religious hypocrisy takes root in a person’s heart, it has the potential to thoroughly destroy his or her ability to perceive and cooperate with the work of God. What makes this virus particularly insidious is that as it grows within an individual’s inner life, everything may look exactly right on the outside. Meanwhile, the incongruence between the interior and exterior life widens.

Seeing God at Work

A number of years ago, our church launched a longterm residential program for men with addictions. It has since become an incredibly fruitful endeavor that God has blessed in many ways. Once a man enters our program, we provide him with food and lodging for an entire year, equip him through lifeon-life discipleship, and train him in vocational skills with the goal of placing him in a suitable job and living arrangement upon graduation.

Early in our program, one of the young men participated in the filming of an informational video on behalf of the ministry. Sitting in front of a beautiful cross, he briefly shared part of his story. For several years, he had struggled with addiction. He lost his job, became estranged from his family, and spent time in jail. Out of desperation, he finally made a decision to seek help. After spending a year in our program and accepting Christ as his Savior, the trajectory of his life began to change dramatically.

If the windows of our hearts are clean, we will be able to perceive the work of God in others. But if our hearts have become polluted with pride and hypocrisy, all we will notice are their faults.

In the video, this man could hardly contain his excitement as he described the restoration that was happening in his personal life. He beamed as he gave thanks for God’s mercy. He then expressed a desire for God to use him to help others.

When we shared the video on social media, most people who commented were thrilled to hear about the change in this young man.

However, one individual had an objection. This person was known in the local community as a selfstyled theological watchdog. He had a reputation for barking at other Christians, preachers and churches who didn’t happen to agree with his view on seemingly any issue. (Of course, the trouble with watchdogs is they often can’t tell the difference between a thief and a mailman.)

Upon watching the brief two-minute video, this critic noticed what he felt was an apparent flaw in the reformed addict’s expression of faith — specifically, the lack of terminology like “repentance,” “blood of Jesus,” or “born again.” Therefore, though he had never met the man in the video, the faultfinder wrote a lengthy post publicly questioning this new believer’s walk with Christ.

The intent of the video was simply to promote the program. The men in our ministry have other opportunities to share their testimonies, most notably at their baptisms. The video fulfilled its purpose of spreading awareness about the program so other individuals and families suffering through addiction could find help.

To this day, the man in that video is walking in freedom from addiction. He is still young in Christ, but the glory of God continues to shine through his life. He may not be as theologically articulate as some, but the work of God in his life has been amazing to witness.

There is so much more gospel hope found in stories like this young man’s than can ever be found in the smug judgmentalism of those who are able to define terms like “atonement” and “propitiation” but cannot see the work of God happening right in front of them.

Over the years, I have been grieved to witness friends and acquaintances who, for whatever reason, latch onto unhealthy and toxic preaching that propagates a similar form of religious externalism. While all the external markers may be present, the fruit that is produced bears no resemblance to the life exemplified by Jesus hanging on the cross praying for His executioners.

Near the end of His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus issued this warning: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matthew 7:15–17).

Jesus was drawing upon a common motif from Isaiah, who frequently used fruit-related imagery in his prophetic declarations. And according to Isaiah, the fruits that God longs for are righteousness and justice (Isaiah 5:1–7).

In other words, God calls us to live in right relationship with Him and with one another. This is exactly the subject matter of the entire Sermon on the Mount, encapsulated by the Beatitudes.

There are false prophets working against the value

system set forth in the Beatitudes. These “ferocious wolves” mercilessly ignore the cries of the meek and the oppressed, seeking to gain power and influence by demonizing other leaders. And their distinguishing characteristic is religious pride.

The sixth Beatitude teaches us that our capacity to see God is connected with the purity of our own hearts.

Jesus warns us to beware of those whose lives display a veneer of religiosity but do not produce the fruits of righteousness and justice. If we constantly feed on influences that are contaminated with self-righteousness and legalistic pride, the virus of religious arrogance will take root in our hearts and even begin spreading among the people around us.

Take a few moments to reflect on the following questions: • Who are the primary influencers in my life (authors, preachers, leaders, podcasters, etc.)? • Do they inspire me to crave more of God’s presence, or do they just beat me down? • Are they capable of seeing God at work in other churches, ministries, and leaders, or have they confined God to their own rigid boxes? • Do they empower me to live a contented life with Christ, or do they inject anxiety and insecurity into my spiritual life?

• Do they encourage me to follow Christ’s way of living humbly, walking in mercy and loving my enemies? • Do they motivate me to live a more others-oriented life? In the interest of spiritual health, we must intentionally surround ourselves with humble-hearted, life-giving people, who are genuinely committed to Jesus, and who share His burden to reconcile all things and all people to the Father. The sixth Beatitude teaches us that our capacity to see God is connected with the purity of our own hearts. If the windows of our hearts are clean, we will be able to perceive the work of God in others. But if our hearts have become polluted with pride and hypocrisy, all we will notice are their faults. It requires no keen spiritual perception to look at other people and point out their deficiencies. To use Jesus’ term, any hypocrite can do that. Spiritual sight is the ability to look at other people, other places, and other churches and identify the handiwork of God.

As we allow the Holy Spirit to purge our hearts of spiritual pride, we will begin to see the redemptive work of Jesus with fresh eyes. And every place He is at work will become a beautiful, panoramic vision of the glory of God.

Adapted from Jesus People: Communities Formed by the Beatitudes by Ryan Post. Copyright ©2021. Used with permission of the author.

RYAN POST

is an ordained AG minister and lead pastor of Village Church in Burbank, California.

Biblical evidence for women in leadership

By DEBBIE LAMM BRAY

The Western Wall in Jerusalem is a sacred gathering place not only for prayer, but also for Jewish ceremonies, such as bar mitzvahs. But some have to watch from afar, because a partition keeps men and women on separate sides. To see the family bar mitzvah, women must stand on chairs and peer over that wall.

This reminds me of a sad reality here at home, in the Christian Church: Some have built walls that hold women at a distance from the work of God.

The Assemblies of God affirms that God calls women and gives them gifts for ministry. We find support for this view in Scripture, where women serve in a wide variety of leadership roles.

This is not the conclusion of all Christians, however. In recent years, a number of influential evangelicals have voiced strong objections to women leading, preaching and teaching. They claim the Scriptures require women to live in submission to men in all realms of life.

So, how do you respond when someone says women should not teach adult men, serve on your staff, or qualify for credentials? How do you answer those who ask why we believe the call of God is for both men and women?

Honest questions are not threatening to God, and we shouldn’t be afraid of them either. Such questions call for sound interpretation of Scripture, which is God’s story of redemption.

With a redemptive view in focus, there are three other lenses that help frame the discussion regarding women in ministry: creation, Jesus, and Paul.

Creation

In Genesis 1, God created the natural world and saw that it was good. But in Genesis 2, something was “not good” (verse 18). Adam was alone. So, God created a “helper suitable for him.”

In Hebrew, those words are ezer kenegdo. Ezer means “strong help.” This word is used in the Old Testament many times, usually of God. Psalm 121:2 is one example: “My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.” Clearly, this is not referring to help from a lesser being or a person who is subordinate to the one receiving help.

The other word here, kenegdo, means “corresponding to,” or “face-to-face.” It suggests one who is like the other. These words tell us God designed women and men as equal partners. Partnership is what God intended.

But then sin entered the picture. The curse of sin includes brokenness in our relationship with God, one another, and even nature itself. Genesis 3 is where we see, in the curse, the equal partnership between men and women broken. This is a result of sin.

Jesus

Jesus redeems, restores and reconciles our brokenness, including our broken relationships. Rules that had developed to prop up fractured structures and relationships did not stop His mission. Jesus healed on the Sabbath, ministered to lepers, touched the dead, and ate with tax collectors.

His interactions with women were among His most countercultural. Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well in John 4 would have been shocking to the original readers. Jesus discussed theology with a woman, who was also a Samaritan, and who was further marginalized by the fact that she had been married five times and was living with someone outside of marriage. Yet it was to this outcast woman whom Jesus first identified himself as “I am,” revealing He is the God of Moses (verse 26).

Jesus also had a significant theological discussion with Martha, the sister of Mary and Lazarus, even though such discourse normally happened only between men (John 11:21–27, 39–40). The Gospels record many more instances in which Jesus interacted with women in ways that contradicted the culture’s typical valuation of, and limitations upon, women.

Perhaps the clearest demonstration of Jesus’ perspective on women’s roles in His mission is that He commissioned a woman to be the first to tell people about the most important event in human history: His resurrection. Women at that time were not allowed to act as witnesses, because they were considered unreliable. But the risen Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene and entrusted her to witness to His male disciples that He had just defeated death itself (John 20:11–18).

If we are to be Jesus-centered and follow Him, we must take note that Jesus commissioned women, telling them to speak in the assembly of His followers and proclaim the good news.

Paul

Many people think of Paul as the biblical author who barred women from ministry. But in Galatians 3:28, Paul made a sweeping statement that defined a whole new worldview for followers of Jesus: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

As Paul saw it, the Cross had changed everything. In Genesis 3, the curse disrupted the equal partnership between men and women and fractured human relationships. But Jesus broke the curse.

Of course, this does not mean we no longer acknowledge any differences. But it does mean race, status and womanhood do not disqualify us from being full heirs with Christ. Paul’s broad theological foundation for God’s people should inform our interpretation of other New Testament passages that relate to women.

Common Objections

Despite the compelling biblical evidence for women in ministry, there are four common objections that create walls for many female followers of Jesus.

Objection No. 1: “There are no examples of women leading or preaching in the Bible.” This is false. Beginning with the Old Testament, the list of female leaders includes, among others, Miriam, a prophet who led the Israelites along with Moses and Aaron (Exodus 15:20; Micah 6:4); Deborah, a prophet, judge and military leader who served as commanding officer to Barak (Judges 4:4–10); Huldah, a prophet who proclaimed God’s message to the priest and other leaders (2 Kings 22:14–20); and Esther, who saved the Jewish people (Esther 8). In the New Testament, Anna is called a prophet (Luke 2:36). And while some note that Jesus’ disciples were men, Mark 15:40–41 names women among those who followed Jesus and supported His ministry. Indeed, the Twelve were men, but they were also Jewish. So if the template for leadership was based on the identities of the Twelve, all Gentiles would be excluded as well. Priscilla taught theology to apostles

It was to an outcast along with her husband, Aquilla. When they are mentioned in their teaching function, Priscilla’s name appears first. In Greek, name placement signifies the order woman of emphasis. It is likely, then, that Priscilla was whom Jesus the primary teacher. In Romans 16:7, first identified Paul greets another pair, Andronicus and himself as Junia, and says they are “outstanding among

“I am.” the apostles,” thus naming a woman (Junia) as an apostle. Objection No. 2: “Paul did not allow women to preach or speak in church.” Except that he did. Consider Phoebe the deacon. Romans 16:1–2 reveals she was the courier for Paul’s letter. Several scholars have noted that couriers had the responsibility not only of delivering letters, but also of reading them aloud, explaining them, and answering questions. In other words, Phoebe was the first to preach, teach and exegete this important text. Paul also expected women to pray and prophesy in the church. In 1 Corinthians 11:5, he wrote that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” Paul’s concern was not that women were verbally participating in

the gathering, but that they were doing so without their heads covered — a cultural issue unique to that time and place.

Objection No. 3: “Paul told women to be silent in church.” First Corinthians 14 is a familiar passage for Pentecostals because of its instructions on maintaining order in services while exercising spiritual gifts. Within this context, verses 34–35 address a problem of some women speaking in the church service.

Some cite this as evidence that Paul intended to silence women in all places, at all times, limiting their service in the church to nonpublic roles. However, this could not have been Paul’s meaning. After all, three chapters earlier, Paul assumed women were praying and prophesying aloud in church and did not tell them to stop.

Many scholars believe Paul was referring in Chapter 14 to Corinthian women asking questions in a disruptive way. They point to the lack of education for women in antiquity, which may have led to comprehension gaps in church gatherings. Talking and asking their husbands questions during the service would have been disruptive. Since the context of this passage is orderly worship, and given Paul’s statements elsewhere, this interpretation makes sense.

Objection No. 4: “Paul did not allow women to lead men.” Some have interpreted a few of Paul’s statements as blanket prohibitions against women leading men. The implications of this view — which would disqualify half the Church from using their gifts in leadership — call for careful, honest evaluation.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, Paul instructed men not to cover their heads when they prayed or

prophesied, and women to do the opposite when they prayed or prophesied. Again, Paul assumed and expected that women would be verbal participants in the worship gathering. Verse 3 says, “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Interpretations of this passage that conclude women should not lead men rely on the phrase, “the head of the woman is man.” The Greek word translated “head” here is kephale. This word does not normally mean “authority” or “boss” but rather “source.” Paul mentions three relationIf ships: Christ and man, man and woman, and God and the Spirit Christ. If kephale means “authority,” the definiis giving gifts, tion must apply to all three examples. It who are we makes sense to say Christ has authority to say some over men. But if we apply this meaning people do not to God and Christ, we have a problem. get to use Historically, orthodox Christianity has them? held that all three Persons of the Trinity are equal; there is no hierarchy of authority. If kephale means “leader” or “authority” in verse 3, Trinitarian theology needs revision. However, if it means “source,” the verse makes sense, and orthodox Trinitarianism remains intact. In this case, the passage means Christ is the source of man; man is the source of woman (since God formed Eve from Adam’s rib); and God is the source of Christ (not as a created being, but as One who came to the world from the Father, as John 1:14 states). There is also another clue in the context. Paul appealed to creation, the chronological order of which was man first, then woman (verses 8–9). This

is not a prominence argument, but merely a chronological argument — which also points to the likelihood that Paul was using kephale to mean “source,” not “leader.”

All of this is really beside the point, though. This passage is not about leadership but head coverings. Anyone who believes this passage prohibits women from leadership for all times and in all places needs to take literally, for all times and in all places, the instructions about head coverings. Of course, verse 13 leaves the conclusion on this culturally specific matter to readers, inviting them to “judge” for themselves whether it is “proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered.”

Ephesians 5:22–6:9 is another text people often use to argue for female submission. Despite what the section title placement suggests in some English versions, the passage includes verse 21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” The instruction to submit applies to all, as mutual submission.

Further, this long Greek sentence begins in verse 18, tying all of the actions (singing psalms and hymns, giving thanks to God, submitting to one another, and wives submitting to husbands) to being filled with the Spirit. Daily living in the fullness of the Holy Spirit looks like this, Paul seems to suggest.

Verse 22 does begin a familiar literary form from the ancient world: a household code. Outside of the New Testament, household codes outlined the responsibilities of each member of the household to the head of the household, who was typically male. (It is worth noting that not all men were in positions of power, and women often exercised authority over men, including male household servants.)

Paul would have surprised readers with his version of the household code, which addressed responsibilities not just for those who were subordinate within that system, but also for those in power. Paul also defined “submission” as “respect” in verse 33, which was a new way of understanding submission.

Paul wrote in a cultural context quite different from our own. But the spiritual principle of this passage still applies — that is, living in step with the Spirit should result in loving, respectful treatment of one another.

Finally, there is 1 Timothy 2:8–15. Paul called on men to stop arguing and start praying, and implored women to avoid flaunting their economic status. Then, in verses 11–12, he wrote: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

On the surface, this appears to be an unequivocal prohibition against women speaking in the church and teaching or leading men. However, Paul did permit women to teach and have authority. He allowed and commissioned Phoebe to carry his letter to the Romans, which would have included reading it (aloud) and explaining it (preaching) to the whole group, including men. Paul praised the teaching ministry of Priscilla and her husband, Aquilla. Paul recognized women as apostles and deacons, including Junia and Phoebe.

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul assumed women would pray and prophesy in church. And, in Galatians 3:28, he declared women equal to men through Christ. Did Paul contradict himself?

“Authority” here is translated from the Greek authentao, which is uncommon in any ancient source. This is the only use of the word in Scripture. The scarcity of its use complicates the task of determining Paul’s meaning.

Outside of Scripture, authentao usually meant to usurp authority or assume a role, but it could also signify authority by legitimate means. When Paul wrote elsewhere about authority in any hierarchical context, he used the word exousia. Paul's choice of a different, uncommon word here suggests he had a different kind of authority in mind.

The setting of Timothy’s work in Ephesus offers some insight. Theological problems had surfaced in the church there, and Paul was guiding Timothy in the work of responding to heresy. Paul returned to the problem of false doctrine several times in both his letters to Timothy. The women in the church were particularly vulnerable to false teaching, as Paul indicated in 2 Timothy 3:6. There was a problem with false teachers convincing uneducated women their heresies were true.

The difficulty of this passage — the lack of clarity regarding word meanings, the contradiction to clear statements the author made elsewhere, and a mysterious statement about childbirth — suggests the context is the key to understanding it. If indeed

women accepted false teaching and then attempted to teach others in the church, that would have been devastating to Paul’s mission. It had to be stopped. Those women needed to be silent and learn, and not take upon themselves the authority to teach. Paul’s clear support of women in leadership and ministry in other passages tells us this unclear passage is an exception. This instruction is situation-specific. The principle here is to stop disputing and arguing, and to seek training and understanding before teaching others.

Without Limit

Within the redemptive story of God — His intention in creation, His character as revealed in Jesus, and the meaning of the Cross — these passages are exceptions to general principles stated elsewhere. The exceptions address The specific situations, and are not binding on all of God’s

Bible people in all places and times. does not say Some may feel this is irrelevant. It is women who not the core of the gospel, they may are gifted should argue. But if Jesus has broken the teach and lead curse of sin and redeemed us, and only children if He reconciles us to himself and one and other another, the Church should reflect that realwomen. ity. The redemptive work of God should be on full display in our lives, relationships and ministries. As Pentecostals, we believe the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts to all. If the Spirit is giving gifts, who are we to say some people do not get to use them? Gifts such as teaching and leadership are not biblically limited to one sex. Women who are gifted

teachers should teach. Women who are gifted leaders should lead. The Bible does not say women who are gifted should teach and lead only children and other women.

What would happen if the body of Christ exemplified Galatians 3:28, including redeemed relationships between men and women? What impact would that have on the world?

What if the generation of women coming after us finds no walls to climb? If they do not have to scale a wall, where else in the Kingdom could they spend their time and energy and gifts? What eternal difference might that make?

God gives the Spirit without limit (John 3:34). So, let’s live without walls.

This article has been adapted from a message Debbie Lamm Bray delivered at an event for women in the Oregon Ministry Network.

DEBBIE LAMM BRAY, Ph.D., is an ordained AG minister and program dean and instructor in Bible, Theology and Calling at Northwest University Oregon in Brooks, Oregon.

Five Resources That Affirm Women Ministers

Women have served as credentialed ministers in the Assemblies of God (AG) since the founding of the Fellowship in 1914.

The following five resources make the case for egalitarianism or provide networking opportunities for women ministers within the AG: 1. “The Role of Women in Ministry” is an AG position paper. “The Bible repeatedly affirms that God pours out His Spirit upon both men and women and thereby gifts both sexes for ministry in His Church,” it concludes. Read the entire position paper at ag.org/ Beliefs/Position-Papers/The-Role-of-Women- in-Ministry.

2. The mission of the Network of Women Ministers (NWM) is “mobilizing women to fulfill their ministerial call” through advocacy, collaboration, and training at both the national and regional levels of the AG. Learn more at womenministers.ag.org. 3. Discovering Biblical Equality is the best single-volume defense of egalitarianism currently available. Written and edited by evangelical and Pentecostal scholars, it examines the biblical, theological, cultural, and practical aspects of male-female relationships in church, home and society. The third edition is forthcoming from IVP Academic in November 2021. 4. Women in the Mission of the Church by Leanne M. Dzubinski and Anneke H. Stasson is a global survey of the often forgotten history of women in ministry. “Women’s contributions to the spread of Christianity have not been sporadic or insignificant,” write the authors. Their survey unfolds in three eras: early Christianity, the Middle Ages, and post-Reformation. 5. Priscilla Papers is the quarterly academic journal of Christians for Biblical Equality, a leading evangelical parachurch ministry that promotes egalitarianism. The journal publishes up-to-date scholarly articles about biblical, theological, historical, and cultural aspects of the relationship between women and men in home, church, and society. Learn more at cbeinternational.org/ publication/priscilla-papers-academic-journal.

GEORGE P. WOOD is executive editor of Influence magazine.

Four lessons from the widow of Zarephath

By HERBERT COOPER

We all love a good comeback story. Think of Rocky, where Rocky Balboa starts from behind, trains hard, looks headed for defeat, but at the last moment comes out on top and wins.

As a pastor, I especially love spiritual comeback stories, where a person moves from sinner to saved, from hurt to healed, from defeated to victorious. The gospel is the ultimate comeback story — life, death, resurrection! Everyone who puts their faith in Jesus Christ will one day have a comeback like His!

But in this life, the comeback doesn’t always happen. If we’ve learned anything from the pandemic, it’s that family and friends die. Jobs are lost.

Relationships fracture but don’t mend.

Even in church, comebacks don’t always happen. Recently, Lifeway Research reported that more U.S. Protestant churches closed than opened in 2019. The data for 2020 wasn’t complete, but Lifeway predicted that the pandemic would only accelerate the trend of church closures.

Maybe you’ve suffered a personal loss during this COVID year. Or maybe, as a pastor, you’ve experienced a ministry loss. Your church-plant launch failed. Your congregation closed its doors. Support dried up, and you had to return home from the mission field.

Through many years of ministry, I’ve seen people respond to setbacks the wrong way. They get bitter and lose faith. They walk out on church, and then they walk out on God.

So, how should we respond to setbacks? What should we do when the comeback seems impossible? We start by turning to Scripture.

THE WIDOW OF ZAREPHATH

First Kings 17:7–15 tells the story of the widow of Zarephath, who had experienced three major setbacks in life.

First, her husband died. He had been her friend, her lover, and the father of her child. He had been the breadwinner, the provider, the one who took care of the family. But now he was gone!

Then famine struck. According to 1 Kings 17:1,

IN THIS LIFE, THE COMEBACK DOESN’T ALWAYS HAPPEN. IF WE’VE LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THE PANDEMIC, IT’S THAT FAMILY AND FRIENDS DIE. JOBS ARE LOST. RELATIONSHIPS FRACTURE BUT DON’T MEND.

God sent drought against the region because of King Ahab’s sins (16:29–33). When the rain doesn’t show, the crops don’t grow, and when crops don’t grow, people get hungry. Over time, the famine became “severe” (18:2). Finally, the woman’s cupboard was bare. When we meet the widow, she is gathering sticks at the city gate. Elijah asks her for a cup of water and a slice of bread. Her reply reveals her desperate straits: “I don’t have any bread — only a handful of flour in a jar and a little olive oil in a jug. I am gathering a few sticks to take home and make a meal for myself and my son, that we may eat it — and die” (17:12).

Death, famine, and poverty stalked the widow of Zarephath. She appeared to have no help and no hope. She wasn’t even looking for any.

But God was looking out for her.

GOD KNOWS AND CARES

When we experience a setback, we feel alone. Proverbs 14:20 says, “The poor are shunned even by their neighbors, but the rich have many friends.” Isn’t that awful? At the very moment we most need other people, they abandon us. We internalize our loss and start to feel like losers.

I imagine that’s how the widow felt. After all, where were her family, friends and neighbors? Were none of them able to help her?

Even worse than the feeling of isolation from others is the feeling of isolation from God. We begin to believe He doesn’t know how horrible our situation is — or, worse, He doesn’t care. So, we start praying desperate prayers: “Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help” (Psalm 22:11).

Trouble is near. God seems far. No one can help.

Such thoughts arise naturally when we experience loss, but there’s a supernatural dimension in play, too. Ever since the serpent slithered through the Garden of Eden, our enemy has been deceiving us about God, questioning His commandments and motives (Genesis 3:1,4).

So when we experience a setback, the devil whispers lies in our ears. He plants seeds of doubt in our minds: “God doesn’t care about you. He doesn’t love you. That’s why you’re going through this setback. You’re so insignificant. You don’t matter. God doesn’t even know where you are.”

Lies, lies, all lies!

The truth is God knows exactly where we are, and help is already on the way. “Go at once to Zarephath in the region of Sidon and stay there,” He told Elijah. “I have directed a widow there to supply you with food” (1 Kings 17:9).

Geography and culture separated Elijah from the widow. The story opens in Kerith Ravine, east of the Jordan, where Elijah is hiding (verse 5). Zarephath is northwest of there, along the Mediterranean coast. Today, traveling from Kerith Ravine to Zarephath involves a long journey through desert, valley, hills and mountains across three international borders — Jordan’s, Israel’s and Lebanon’s.

The cultural distance was much longer. A powerful male compared to a poor female. A prophet compared to a widow. A Jew compared to a Gentile. Could God care about the circumstances of such a socially insignificant pagan? Even Jesus marveled at God sending Elijah to this widow in that place (Luke 4:25–26).

God knew about the widow’s dire straits before she did. Help was on the way before she met Elijah outside Zarephath’s city gates. If God knew and cared about her, He knows and cares about you!

When we experience setbacks and feel isolated from God, we need to remember first and foremost that God always knows exactly where we are and exactly what we need.

OUR LAST MEAL

Interestingly, when Elijah finally meets the widow, his first words to her concern his needs, not hers. “Would you bring me a little water in a jar so I may have a drink?” After a long journey through a drought-ridden region, Elijah’s thirsty request is not surprising. But in a famine, his next request seems especially audacious: “And bring me, please, a piece of bread” (1 Kings 17:10–11).

I imagine the widow fixed the prophet with the look of a woman who’s been rudely importuned by a man. Let me paraphrase her response: “Are you crazy? I’m already starving, and you want to snatch the bread right out of my mouth and my son’s? I’m dying, and you want our last meal?”

Yes, that’s exactly what Elijah wanted. “Don’t be afraid,” he replied to her. “Go home and do as you have said. But first make a small loaf of bread for me from what you have and bring it to me” (verse 13).

When we experience setbacks, not only do we feel isolated, but we also feel emptied. We have no one to help and nothing to give. God wants us to give Him our “nothing.” He wants our losses, our broken relationships, and our disappointments.

But God also wants our “something.” Even after the widow complained, Elijah still asked her for a piece of bread. When the comeback seems impossible, God wants our last meal.

The widow’s last meal wasn’t just a jar of flour and a jug of olive oil. It was her faith in the God who promised to supply her needs: “The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the Lord sends rain on the land” (verse 14).

When we’re at our lowest point in life, we need to keep trusting God. That means being generous with our last meal. It’s foolish to hold onto the jug of flour and jar of oil. They need to be used to meet others’ needs.

When we’re generous that way, we’re not just helping others; we’re helping Jesus. According to His sheep-and-goats teaching, when we feed the hungry, show hospitality to the homeless, care for the sick, clothe the naked, and visit the incarcerated, we’re doing those things to Jesus: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40).

We need to give Jesus our last meal.

In our natural hands, the flour and oil produce only what we provide. In Christ’s supernatural hands, they produce whatever He can provide, and His supply is limitless. In Jesus’ hands, our last meal becomes a lasting meal, for ourselves and others. “So there was food every day for Elijah and for the woman and her family” (1 Kings 17:15).

GOD’S WORD

Now, I know what you’re thinking at this point: This is a comeback story after all! Despite the odds, the widow perseveres and beats the famine! In fact, throw in the second part of the story, when her son dies and Elijah resurrects him (verses 17–24), and Rocky Balboa’s triumph pales by comparison!

I can see why you think that, but the widow’s story isn’t a winner’s story. She’s a survivor, not a thriver. Her story is not about winning any more; it’s about not losing anymore. The widow doesn’t leap ahead in life; she just stops stumbling further behind.

At the start of the story, Elijah tells the widow to make bread from what’s in her jar of flour and jug of oil, and that’s how the story ends, too: “For the jar of flour was not used up and the jug of oil did not run dry” (verse 16). She uses the same two vessels throughout the famine, which lasted three years (1 Kings 18:1).

But while the widow’s story is not a comeback story, it is a come back story. Every morning, she woke up, went out and gathered sticks for a fire, returned to the kitchen, and came back to the jar and jug to make enough bread for three.

She did this out of obedience to God’s word through Elijah. He told her, “Go home and do … (1 Kings 17:13). So, “she went away and did as Elijah had told her” (verse 15). According to Aristotle, every story has a beginning, middle and end. The Word of God itself is the beginning (verses 2,8), middle (verses 14,16), and end (verse 24) of the widow’s story. When we experience setbacks, we often let our experience shape our theology rather than God’s Word. In pain, we stop believing God cares for us. Because of loss, we start hoarding spiritual, emotional and material resources. Our theology becomes self-centered and ungenerous.

This is understandable. Pain turns us inward. In 2010, I lost my mother; my brother followed her in 2017. There was no comeback at their funerals. It was a difficult time.

And self-care is undoubtedly important. Going through loss isn’t about caring for others versus caring for ourselves; we must do both. The widow certainly did, feeding Elijah, her son and herself.

Here’s the moral of the story, though: The widow obeyed the word of the Lord, and the Lord kept His word. She survived “in keeping with the word of the Lord spoken by Elijah” (verse 16).

When a comeback seems impossible, we need to come back to God’s Word. That’s the moral for our lives’ stories, too. We must practice that “long obedience in the same direction” Eugene Peterson talked about. God’s Word, not our experience, charts the direction for our lives.

IN JESUS’ HANDS, OUR LAST MEAL BECOMES A LASTING MEAL, FOR OURSELVES AND OTHERS.

When we want to turn in, we need to turn out and turn up. Keep going to church, keep loving people, keep serving others, keep praying, keep obeying God’s commandments, keep trusting His promises! Daily obedience to the Word of God will help us get through when there is no coming back.

GRACE FOR EVERY SEASON

Still, daily obedience is hard. Thank God there was food every day, of course, but couldn’t God have provided more than “a handful of flour in a jar and a little olive oil in a jug” (verse 12)? I understand there weren’t refrigerators back then and the widow didn’t have a large pantry, but isn’t God bigger than a “handful” and a “little?

If I were the widow of Zarephath, I’d want more than one jar-and-jug’s worth of food. I’d want a whole Costco nearby with supersized containers full of tasty treats, not to mention some meat and potatoes. And throw in some sweet tea, while you’re at it!

All God provided the widow was enough flour and enough oil to make enough Signs-and-Wonder Bread every day. Jesus taught us to pray, “Give us today our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11). Daily bread was all that was on the menu — all day, every day — and it was enough.

Enoughness is the issue, isn’t it? We feel less than when we experience a setback. We want a comeback so we can have more than. What God actually gives us is sufficient. He gives us himself when the comeback seems impossible, and at the end of the day, He is all we need.

Jump with me from Zarephath to Ephesus, and from the eighth century B.C. to the first century. Paul is writing the Corinthians (again) to correct their errors (again), and in doing so, he tells them about “surpassingly great revelations” he experienced (2 Corinthians 12:7). Enthusiastic charismatics though they were, none of the Corinthians had been “caught up to paradise” or “heard inexpressible things” as Paul had (verse 4).

These revelations showed that Paul was a morethan-enough Christian, a more-than-enough apostle — certainly more than those troublemaking Corinthians ever would be!

God knew that more-than-ness could easily go to Paul’s head. So, as Paul put it, “in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me” (verse 7). Talk about a setback!

Worse, there was no comeback. “Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’” (verses 8–9). We don’t know how long Paul suffered. For all we know, he carried this setback to his grave.

The question Paul’s example poses is, “What is enough?”

When we experience setbacks, the answer to that

GOD’S WORD, NOT OUR EXPERIENCE, CHARTS THE DIRECTION FOR OUR LIVES.

question seems to be … more. We want Jesus + _______. You can fill in the blank with whatever you want. Health, wealth, love, power, influence. Sadly, it seems, we are not satisfied until or unless we have more than even Jesus himself.

Perhaps that is a reason we find life so hard when the comeback seems impossible. We want more than Jesus. We think Jesus is less than we need.

Friends, Jesus is all we need. Let me repeat that: All we need is Jesus. If we have His grace, we have enough. If we have His power, we have enough.

If, like the widow of Zarephath, we come back to the jar and jug daily, we will find our daily bread. “I am the bread of life,” Jesus declared. “Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35).

For now, for some, a comeback seems impossible. Someday, of course, The Comeback will happen because Jesus Christ himself will come back (Acts 1:11)! Then, there will be no more setbacks, “‘no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4). Until then, whatever our circumstances, God knows where we are. So let’s give Jesus our last meal. Keep obeying the Word of God, for Jesus is enough, and He gives grace and power in every season of life.

HERBERT COOPER

is the founding and senior pastor of People’s Church (AG), a multisite congregation in Oklahoma City.