Prone to wander: balance, family and priorities

As I look back at our calendar over the past 12 months, it’s easy to be puffed up.

We are the perfect family where I write interesting things, preach, lead worship, study, read, go cycling, play. Cheryl is the perfect housewife who bakes, sews, binds books, cooks, teaches the girls. It’s easy to rattle off what we’ve done and convince ourselves that being busy, doing stuff, going from one thing to another, means we have it all together.

But that’s not true.

That’s not who we are as a family. We struggle with sin. We’re tempted like everyone to make good things ultimate things in our lives. We need to keep bringing ourselves, our idols, to the foot of the cross and find forgiveness and grace in Jesus.

So here is an honest reflection, and an invitation to pray with us and to encourage one another.

One area that’s been a struggle for us in the last few months is in balancing between church and family commitments. And this is an area where I’m the one most at fault. And so earlier this week, after the helter-skelter of organising conferences, planning induction services and all kinds of ministry stuff, it was good for Cheryl and I to sit and think through where we were at.

We got to reflect on many things, including:

  • How easily I’ve said yes to ministry-related requests, even when I knew it was directly at the expense of serving the family.
  • How easy it’s been for date nights and family times to be put aside in exchange for an important ministry task.
  • How my heart is tempted to see up-front ministry as more spiritually formative than reading and praying at the dinner table.
  • Wondering out loud if – Lord forbid – I was willing to sacrifice my children on the altar of ministry “success”.

Faithful are the wounds of a friend, no less my best friend. It was difficult but good to wrestle with the truth: these are my temptations and struggles, from a heart that should delight in the love of Christ more than the praises of men, but is still “prone to wander”.

And perhaps they’re your struggles too. Whatever your vocation.

Maybe, like me, you’ve hidden behind your computer or phone screen because it’s easier than resolving the argument with your wife or kids.

Maybe, like me, you’d prefer chatting with the someone who showers you with praise on Sunday morning, than chatting with your wife about what chores need to be done. 



Last Sunday, the elders of Howick Baptist commissioned Richard and Sam Cutforth into full-time service as Senior and Assistant Pastor respectively. During the commissioning, one of the elders read out 1 Timothy 3:1-7 to remind everyone of the characteristics of an overseer. It was verse 4 and 5 that stuck out to both of us.

“He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)”

This isn’t just for “elders”. This is a mark of a mature Christian. Faithfulness to the family – how I set my priorities in my home life, how I love Cheryl and the girls, how I serve them – all this determines how effective I am in any kind of gospel ministry.

By God’s grace I hope I don’t forget this.


My submission to the Health Select Committee regarding euthanasia / assisted suicide in New Zealand

Until Monday 1 February, The NZ Parliament’s Health Select Committee is inviting the public to share their views on euthanasia / doctor-assisted suicide. The most significant thing they want to know is whether people think it should become legal to help someone else commit suicide.

From my own interactions, I can see that people on both sides of this debate have sympathy with suffering people and want everyone to die peacefully, with dignity and without pain. The difference seems to be how this should be achieved, and what lengths should be allowed to do so.

If you want to make your own submission, you can go here – it’s free, you can even just say one sentence, and it’s a great way to be involved in the discussion of what’s literally a life-and-death issue.

If you’re interested, my submission is below. It’s certainly not the best (even reading it now I wish I had worded things differently), and there are other much better examples out there. But it’s personal and I hope it’s a positive contribution to the discussion.



Select committee: Health Committee
Item of business: Petition of Hon Maryan Street and 8,974 others
Submission date: 2016-01-18
Reference number*: WV481O8

This submission is made by William Chong in a personal capacity.

I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.

I do not want assisted suicide / euthanasia to be legalised.

Any act of deliberately ending the life of someone, even at their request or the request of close friends / relatives, is unethical.

The proposed exploration of euthanasia would stand at odds with NZ’s current suicide reporting regulations. On the one hand, media should not report on suicides to discourage others from doing so. On the other hand, media are championing and encouraging others who wish to, or have done so. This is a contradiction of values.

The proposed exploration of euthanasia is also a personal concern. A close friend of ours suffering from mental illness attempted suicide a number of years ago. This person received the support of friends and family and life-affirming treatment from medical and healthcare professionals. They are now living a healthy and meaningful life.

If the option of euthanasia was made available for this person’s “intolerable mental suffering”, it’s likely they would not be here today.

In addition, legalising euthanasia would put other vulnerable people, such as the elderly and the disabled, under increased pressure to end their life in order not to be a burden to their family. Instead of celebrating and valuing life, we would be in danger of moving towards practising / enabling physician-assisted eugenics where those who are deemed by society to be of no value are killed.

The freedom to choose what we do with our bodies is important, but it should not be an inalienable right. For society to thrive and flourish, we sometimes limit our rights in day to day living. The right to actively kill another person should not be enshrined in law as legal.

Finally, as a Christian, I oppose euthanasia based on the conviction that human life and death are given to us by God.

In addition, I consider human beings, regardless of disability or state, as inherently valuable to God as image-bearers, and it is unloving to take the life of an image-bearer.

In addition, I consider old age, disability and suffering, even immense suffering, as permitted by God for a higher purpose, and not something to be avoided at all costs. Furthermore, the God revealed in the Holy Bible is not uninterested in suffering; rather, He chose to enter into our world in Jesus, and to suffer Himself in order that death might not be the last word.

Based on these convictions, I conclude that that the Health Select Committee should not recommend any legal allowance for assisted suicide / euthanasia.

Other NZ resources I have found helpful are stated in the following places:


Traditions and what we treasure

Christmas is an important time of year. As sinful and forgetful people, we often need the reminder of Christ’s incarnation amidst the sadness and brokenness in our own lives and the world we live in.

But the first year we were married, we sat in our hot, humid apartment unit, not quite knowing how to celebrate Christmas. Both of us grew up in homes with few traditions around Christmas – so this was a blank slate for our family.

We knew we didn’t really want to buy into the commercial and materialistic excesses of the year, but not much else. So that year we made a feeble (but delicious) attempt at some cross-shaped cookies, and resolved to be a bit more intentional next Christmas.

Story stones. Card-making and writing. Advent readings. Carol-singing. Each year brings new attempts, new refinements as we carve out our own family traditions, all in bursts of trial and error.

Admittedly in all of this it’s easy to get swept away in the traditions and miss the point of Christmas entirely. Which traditions are worth keeping? Which should be discarded?

I like Noel Piper’s clarity in her book, Treasuring God in Our Traditions. In it she says that tradition is:

“…the handing down of information, beliefs, worldview from one generation to another by word of mouth and by regular repetition of example of ceremony of celebration.” (p.26)

In the same book, she writes this encouragement and challenge:

“Only God can bequeath God to our children (John 1:12)… Now although we cannot bequeath God to our children, we can help them know Him and understand Him in ways that prepare them to believe in His name. “Everyday” and “especially” traditions in a family are an important part of that teaching, of picturing who God is and what he’s done in our home and in the world. Traditions are a vital way of displaying our greatest treasure, of showing what—Who—is most important to us…” (p.18)

So we press on with our faltering attempts to saturate our family patterns with signposts to Christ – showing Jesus, the child born a King, God with us, the Suffering Saviour, as most important to us. And whether you’re single or married, whatever your traditions look like, may God richly bless you too, as you lay up God’s words in your hearts and pass His words to the next generation.


“We will not hide them from their children,
but tell to the coming generation
the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might,
and the wonders that he has done.”
(Psalm 78:4)

2015-12-19 07.49.31 2015-12-23 07.48.03 2015-12-23 07.48.26

Unpacking Baptist Hui 2015

Photo: Pakuranga Baptist Church, facebook page

It’s been a couple of days since the 2015 Baptist Assembly/Hui, held from Thursday to Saturday in Tauranga, New Zealand. While there was a well-thought out and interesting programme around the theme “humility, unity and intimacy”, the key issue on the table was a discussion and vote regarding same-sex marriages on Friday 6 November.

The outcome was that the Baptist Union of New Zealand voted in favour of three resolutions: upholding a biblical definition of marriage as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman; affirming that NZ Baptists will not conduct same-sex marriages or allow our properties to be used for same; and not nominating marriage celebrants who conduct same-sex marriages to the Registrar of Marriage (in the first instance).

Even before mainstream media outlets reported on this, the results (including voting percentages) had already been leaked online in an article titled “Baptists add threats to gay marriage opposition”:

The first resolution says “The Baptist Union of NZ Assembly 2015 continues to uphold the sanctity of the biblical understanding of marriage, understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman”. It passed with a 97 per cent of the vote in favour.

The second resolution affirmed that no Baptist Church will conduct same-sex marriages or allow properties to be used for same-sex marriage services. This resolution passed with 83 per cent of the vote in favour.

The final resolution, passing with 78 percent of the vote in favour, and perhaps the most revealing of all three, stated: “If a Baptist celebrant conducts a same-sex marriage ceremony, the marriage celebrant, in the first instance, will no longer be nominated to the Registrar of Marriages by the Baptist Union of NZ.”

There’s lots of things spinning around in my head and my recall isn’t that fantastic, so please don’t see what follows as an official account of what took place (I hope the BU will publish an official statement soon). I’ve chosen not to name names and churches (except my own) – please also note that I’m not speaking on behalf of my church here. This is my own attempt at thinking through a complex, difficult issue that involves real people, real families and real communities. Also, apologies for any typos or grammatical mistakes – I’m rushing through a whole bunch of writing today.


In April 2013, the New Zealand parliament voted to pass into law the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, making New Zealand the 13th country in the world and the first in the Asia-Pacific region to legalise same-sex marriage.

Intending to protect Baptist churches concerned about being forced to perform a marriage between same-sex couples, the Assembly Council (an elected body representing Baptist churches in the Baptist Union of New Zealand) brought to the annual gathering of BU churches two motions for ratification:

  1. That Baptist pastors do not conduct same sex marriages or use their properties for the same.
  2. That a Working Party would be established to canvas Baptist churches about the issue of same-sex marriage and autonomy

During the November 2013 business meeting (held in Manukau), the first motion was immediately amended from a prohibition to a “recommendation”, which was subsequently voted through (I wasn’t at this meeting; you can read more about it here).

Over the next 2 years, the Working Party received verbal and oral submissions, produced a report, from which the Assembly Council brought three resolutions to this year’s meeting.

What happened at the meeting

Interest for the meeting was high, with over 600 delegates registered (more than double the usual attendance – certainly more than last year’s Assembly at Waitangi). Registered delegates were permitted into the meeting room. I met quite a few people who had come along just to watch the debate (“I’m here for the bunfight”, said one person in jest). It was probably wise that they weren’t allowed into the meeting room (there was a live feed available instead). Journalists were explicitly asked to leave the meeting, and filming was prohibited. As voting delegates, we were each handed a green A5 sheet with the resolutions on one side, and Yes / No boxes on the reverse to indicate our vote on the resolutions as framed during the discussion.

Three resolutions were tabled, and delegates were allowed to speak to each one (we only learned this on the day). Ian (one of our elders) had the opportunity to speak on Resolution 1, while I spoke on Resolution 2 (you can read it here). Over 30 different speakers took the floor – I think in general, people were a lot more prepared compared to the 2013 discussion.

Voting was by secret ballot at the end of the meeting. HBC’s delegates voted in favour of all three resolutions, in line with our church’s stance on the issue.

During the discussion I tried to note down who spoke and the positions expressed.

For Resolution 1 (what the biblical definition of marriage should be), 8 delegates spoke in favour of the resolution, 3 spoke against the resolution (and in favour of same-sex marriages performed in Baptist churches), with one unclear. The main arguments in support were an appeal to the Scripture’s teaching on sexuality, a need to hold God’s love and holiness together, and a need to uphold the historical, orthodox view of marriage. The main arguments against Resolution 1 were that “it was a secondary matter of faith” that churches in Union could disagree on, that we are all sinners, and that it would be unconstitutional and un-Baptist to legislate against what a local church had decided on. To be honest, I expected the speakers against to bring forward more arguments concerning the Biblical texts, instead of focusing largely on autonomy, constitution and procedural issues.

The discussion on Resolution 2 (therefore, Baptists will not conduct same sex marriages etc) turned out to be where much of the manoeuvring and debating took place. There were 15 speeches in total during this section. Half of those who spoke on Resolution 2 opposed and/or wished to amend Resolution 2. Some disagreed with it in line with their opposition to the first resolution, but for quite a few others, the point of contention was that while they were not in favour of same-sex marriages, they felt it went against the spirit of “Baptist autonomy” to make a binding decision affecting other churches who disagreed. “Why can’t we be both/and?”, said one speaker. The argument that came through in support of Resolution 2 was that “it’s better to be Biblical than Baptist”, i.e. the principle of autonomy should not override the clear teachings of Christ.

During the discussion on resolution 2, a proposed amendment to change the wording from “will not conduct same-sex marriages” to “recommend that we not conduct…” was tabled (it was quite nerve-wracking having to speak straight after this pastor!) It got a bit complicated after this but the Chair was helpful, explaining that speeches needed to address the amendment.

After a nervous wait, the amendment was eventually voted down on a show of hands. Here’s the enduring image from the meeting etched into my mind: a sea of green voting papers, raised into the air to oppose the amendment, flags held high by the silent majority. I think that was the moment when you felt like the three resolutions were going to make it through.

There was another amendment on resolution 2 for minor word changes (affirms rather than agrees together; buildings to properties) that did go through. I felt the person who made the amendment broke standing orders though (he started with a “point of order” and then proposed the amendment – essentially jumping the long queue of people who had been patiently waiting to speak).

I found it harder to follow the discussion on resolution 3 (pastors who conduct same-sex marriages would no longer be nominated to the list of BU celebrants) – perhaps because I was hungry for lunch! I think there were about a half dozen speakers. The first was an amendment that tried to take out the phrase “in the first instance” from the wording; that was voted down. Following that, there were a few more speakers both for and against, with the last one being particularly upset that Baptist delegates were so interested in this issue but not others.

Encouraging things

In no particular order, here’s what I found encouraging:

  • The process wasn’t rushed. Someone once complained to me that it was ridiculous for the Baptist Union to take 2 years to “work out” an issue that was crystal clear in the Scriptures. And while his point had merit, I do think that by taking the time and inviting as many churches and individuals to participate in the process, we ended up with a result that truly reflected the majority NZ Baptist heart and mind concerning autonomy and same-sex marriage, and therefore a much stronger mandate for the resolutions.
  • There wasn’t a hateful attitude towards the LGBT community. Throughout the debate and in the months prior, I didn’t see anything that could be described as “gay-hating” (as one delegate put it). The mover of the three motions noted from the start that we have often not loved our LGBT friends and family as we ought. One speaker, representing the LGBT community as a practising homosexual, was warmly applauded. The majority of speakers were clear, compassionate and gracious in tone. In fact, the most strident and angry-sounding speakers tended to be those opposed to the resolutions (particularly towards the end of the meeting). Many spoke of how this issue affected them personally, with friends, family, and members of their churches. In particular, one speaker for resolution 2 explained that all of us had sin to repent of, and that we would do well to adopt Jesus’s approach of loving someone and calling them to turn from idolising something (e.g. the rich young ruler in Mark 10 – “Jesus looked at him, and loved him” – then called him to give up the wealth he treasured above everything else). It was explained in such a loving and kind way – you could hear a pin drop in the room. It was good to have this kind of civility during such an emotionally tense discussion.
  • Belated ethnic voices. The working party report noted the missing voice of non-NZ European churches in the submissions it received. There weren’t many that spoke who could be considered non-Caucasian. But it was good to hear from one pastor who shared that his international congregation (including Asian, Latin American, Middle Eastern and African Christians) wanted certainty and clarity from all this discussion and supported all three resolutions. It’s reminded me that in many other denominations, it’s the Global South and countries like China and India that comprise the majority of active Christians. So I really appreciated that.
  • The meeting was well-run. Other than the point-of-order queue jump earlier on, I think the meeting was run quite well. Not an easy task for the Chairperson and the timekeepers. Volunteers helped to count votes and usher people to the right seats. All these little touches helped to make the meeting go more smoothly.


Here are some concerns and questions I have coming away from the meeting (again, in no particular order).

  • Forgetting the missing category – I wish someone could have floated a fourth resolution along the lines of: “Baptists should sympathise with those who struggle with same-sex attraction, and with their families, even as we continue to encourage all Christians to live godly lives that conform to the clear teachings of Scripture.” (copied verbatim from our church’s members statement). We need to acknowledge that there’s another category between the sin of gay pride (in the vein of Glee) and the sin of homophobia/hate crime (in the vein of Westboro). While some speakers did well with this, I felt the underlying assumption for several speakers remained that same-sex attracted individuals were cases to be cured, rather than image-bearers whose biggest problem was unbelief, needing (like all of us) to repent from self-centredness and to find satisfaction in Christ alone. I personally know individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction but accept the gospel and strive to follow a life under the lordship of Christ. Sometimes I cringe at what we as Christians communicate in our category assumptions. Sam Allberry says it best: “All of us are sexual sinners.”  I love the work that goes on with groups like Livingout.org and individuals like Christopher Yuan and Rosaria Butterfield. I think their perspectives are largely MIA in our discussions.
  • The autonomy sacred cow – I found it concerning the number of speakers who appealed to the autonomy of individual churches as an irreversible trump card for the whole situation. Others have spoken well on this (e.g. here). The other line of thought frequently referred to during the debate was that the resolutions were illegal and unconstitutional. Is it illegal/unconstitutional for a voluntary association to set rules around its member churches? And maybe we’ve forgotten that Jesus was terribly unconstitutional (in the Pharisees’ eyes at least) for healing on the Sabbath, for forgiving sin, and ultimately for raising dead hearts to life. One speaker rightly suggested that perhaps autonomy is our denomination’s corban issue, where we’ve “let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions”. Autonomy shouldn’t override the clear teachings of Christ on the gospel, marriage, sexuality and faithfulness. That’s not autonomy; it’s anarchy.
  • The next generation – It seems like the under-30 age group was under-represented – both at the meeting itself and during the Working Party process. (Other than myself, there were only a handful of speakers that could be considered young adults). In addition, the younger generation that spoke during the meeting were mostly against the 2nd and 3rd resolutions. I feel like in 10-15 years time I’ll be in the minority group amongst my peers (not that it’s necessarily a bad place to be).
  • Carey cone of silence – Other than the Chair of the Working Party (an adjunct lecturer), not a single lecturer or staff member from Carey Baptist College spoke up during the meeting, or contributed publicly to the Working Party process. For a discussion that involved much theological wrestling, you would think that the NZ BU’s official theological college would have wanted to enter the discussion publicly, or to resource churches with their submissions and discussions in some way. It’s possible I’m wrong and that Carey did lots of speaking and teaching on this issue behind the scenes, or in individual churches. Maybe they were asked not to participate in the discussion. But I felt it was a noticeable cone of silence during the meeting itself, and in the lead-up. I hope in future the College plays a more active role (even to the general public) on other issues (e.g. euthanasia, poverty, refugees, sex slavery) – that would certainly help.

Standing firm within your denomination

I didn’t choose to be a Baptist – I pretty much fell into this denomination after becoming a Christian. Since then I’ve heard a range of views regarding the pros and cons of participating within a denomination that our church finds itself at odds with on a range of second-level issues (e.g. church leadership, spiritual gifts, nature of missions, etc). I’ve heard people who I respect implore us to “come out and be separate”, and other voices I respect that have encouraged us to “stay and influence”. It’s hard to say which is better at this point in time. But as long as our church can in good conscience remain in the Baptist Union, I think it’s important for us to be engaged as much as we’re able to in areas of shared belief and practice.

The discussion highlighted that many in the Baptist family are still focused on proclaiming Christ crucified for sinners. If that’s the case, then it’s worth being involved. I think the value is not in picking fights with the most strident voices in opposition, but to network and learn alongside the moderate majority, the brothers and sisters in the middle who are doing their best with what God’s given them in their area of God’s vineyard, who could be open to a more robust mutual confession. It’s much harder to do all that from the outside looking in.

The cost of following Jesus

I’m tired now, so I want to close this off. I write this with family I deeply love that affirm a gay lifestyle. I write this with friends who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction. I write this as a dad struggling to raise my children to love the Lord completely – heart, mind, soul and strength. I write this as a sexual sinner myself. In Christ, there is forgiveness for all sins.

I write all this recognising that to the eyes of the watching world, much of the discussion and decisions regarding the same-sex marriage issue will sound punitive, vindictive and offensive. I’m very sorry if it reads this way. Three statements on paper looks very impersonal and clinical without the context of men and women who dialogued prayerfully, extensively, and graciously on the subject. Once the decision goes public, Baptist leaders and churches will be pilloried and mocked. I’m sure the media will be unforgiving.

But maybe that’s exactly where God wants us to be. After all, Jesus calls us to take up our cross and follow him (Matthew 16:26). And we’re warned: “Do not be surprised if the world hates you” (1 John 3:13). Christians have never been promised an easy ride – “through many tribulations we must enter the Kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). Our Saviour was “despised and rejected by men” (Isaiah 53).

For our Christian friends on the outside looking in, please remember Baptist leaders, pastors and churches in your prayers in the weeks ahead. And fellow Baptists, let’s also pray for those in other denominations wrestling through the same issue in their contexts (e.g. Anglicans with Motion 30).

Finally, I hope in all this, all of us remain fixed on the goal of clinging to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the only remedy for our sins – sexual or otherwise, and that we encourage one another to live godly lives that reflect the glory of Christ.



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



Two truths to hang on to when your pastor leaves


A few weeks back, I was asked to preach Acts 18 as part of Howick and Papakura Baptist’s  teaching series through Luke’s account of the early church. The preaching commitments had been organised months beforehand. But in God’s providence, I preached Acts 18 at Papakura Baptist the week after it was announced that their Pastor, Richard Cutforth, was the Senior Pastor candidate for HBC.

Being at Papakura, meeting people and hearing how they were doing was awkward, emotional and encouraging all at the same time. It reminded me of how we felt last year when three different men left Howick for various reasons – shock, denial, anger, grief, uncertainty, trust, resolve, acceptance (sometimes all in the same day!).

Before I got up to preach, the service leader did a quick interview. Tell us about your family. What are your plans for the future. Then…

“How have things been at Howick with the transition?”

As I looked out to meet the gaze of the saints at Papakura, there was a church family waiting to hear what this guy (from the church that’s taking our pastor!) would say about it all. The question behind the interview question was simply this: “What’s it like to lose your pastor?”

There are lots of helpful truths to dwell on when considering this subject. But I told them I could only share what it was like as a member of Howick going through something similar. God brought to mind two truths that’s helped me through our time at HBC without a pastor.

1. The church’s one foundation is Jesus.

One of the hymns we’ve sung a bit more at church this year is Samuel Stone’s “The Church’s One Foundation“. The first line says:

The church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her,
And for her life He died.

Now I’m not saying that church leaders don’t matter. God gives elders and deacons, and other servant leaders. And with elders specifically, God calls them to shepherd the flock, to get amongst them (1 Peter 5). And when you love a pastor, it hurts to see them go. But at its very core, the church isn’t built on one man, or a group of men, but the Man, Christ Jesus. He’s the cornerstone and foundation of every gospel-preaching community.

Ultimately, Christ is the head of your church, my church, any true church. He is the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4) that appoints under-shepherds to oversee His flock. God the Father has put everything: church leaders, ministries, results, everything – under the authority of Christ. That’s the big picture. Even without a pastor, the risen Jesus will sustain and nourish through the Word explained and applied. He’s left believers with the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth (John 14:25-26). Jesus leads His church, because He died for her.

2. God has adequately equipped the saints to do the work of ministry.

In Ephesians 4:11-14 we read:

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

So the goal of all our endeavours as a church is to present men and women mature in Christ (see also Col 1:28-29). But whose job is it? On first glance, we assume it’s the pastors that do ministry. It’s the gifted ones. That’s not what the text says though. The text says that their role is actually to “equip the saints for the work of ministry”.

I think sometimes we’re scared about being without a pastor because we hold on to the assumption that the paid staff pastor does the ministry, while the church receives and is ministered too. No pastor = no ministry. But that’s not true. The job of ministry, of building one another up in Christ, actually belongs to the whole church.

At Howick, one of the most encouraging things we saw when pastors left was how different people stepped up to serve. Our homegroups became training grounds for bible study leaders and outreach and discipleship. We’ve actually had more members join HBC this year than in 2013 and 2014.

Pastors and other church leaders will lead and facilitate ministry. But every church member is competent and equipped to do the work of the ministry.