Nepotism in the Church

Nepotism widely exists within the Church and churches, a good example of it could perhaps be Joel Olsteen, if you know anything about his biography; however, is this good thing or bad? I plan on perhaps doing a more in depth research on the matter because it is an extremely serious issue that faces us all. I wonder if all the graduates that obtain theology degrees every year are getting the interviews they should, and I wonder if the church members are really getting the best teaching they should because of this problem. The following is an excerpt from Don G. Brock's blog, and I personally think it great to see people speak up on this matter. The posting is titled: Nepotism in the Church and it reads as follows:



"In an organization which promotes very high standards of ethics and morality, the church is practicing nepotism as being acceptable. For years, church leaders have hired, promoted, paid, and protected their wives and family members - effectively doubling their household income. Leaders that pay their wife as secretary, administrative assistant, or office manager with church funds, claim the benefits of loyalty and confidentiality. God only knows how often it also protects secrecy.

Nepotism is the practice of allowing employment and economic policies that permit favoritism toward one's family. It includes giving favored employment positions to family members as well as encouraging business transactions with other family members.

I don’t think it’s possible for a leader to fairly evaluate the work of his or her spouse. Even if it were possible (and I don’t think it is), the simple perception of wrongdoing that arises in the minds of the others is reason enough to consider such relationships to be inadvisable and unethical.

Church leaders are more involved in the business of the church today than ever. Some even appoint their own Finance Committee (which opens the door to conflicts of interest, and closes the door to independent thinking and review). Some pastors even appoint their wife as local church Treasurer, a clear conflict of interest which should never happen.

Clergy leaders are expected to establish a reputation (and live up to it). Their conduct determines their reputation. And the people they serve expect their conduct to be scrupulous.

Conflict of interest refers to a situation where a person’s financial or professional loyalty or objectivity in doing his job may be compromised by an outside interest of the person. We are used to hearing the term used with respect to outside business ownership interests of executives or public officials. For non-executives, the concept comes up more vaguely in conjunction with issues like trade secrets, confidentiality, and non-compete clauses. The term also refers to nepotism (Don G. Brock)."




Well, I hope you have enjoyed reading this article, and I also hope that it raised questions in your mind about the matter; I also hope you start doing something about it…if anything start asking questions. God bless!

Reference:
http://don-brock.blogspot.com/2009/02/nepotism-in-church.html

The Earliest Christian Apologetist

Christianity was born in the first century, but as it was new on the block, and many sacrifices would follow to give Christians the freedom to practice they enjoy today in some countries. Today, however, in some parts of the world Christians are still persecuted, tortured, and killed for their faith, and this may well be a topic that needs to be addressed in future postings, but for now lets travel back to the time when Christianity was just a child. Christian apologetics in the second century can indeed be described today. Apologetics comes from the Greek word “apologia” which means to give a defense. Christian apologist or defenders of the Christian faith arose due to the many charges or accusations that arose from the Roman Empire against the early church. The defense was an actual defense before the Courts for the practices of which they were being accused. Fergusson says that “the authentic accounts of martyrdom from the second century come in three literary forms: “letters”…”passions”…, and “acts (Fergusson, p. 79).”

Christians experienced many accusations against them mostly because of misunderstandings since the type of worship they practiced was relatively new. The Christian church was really unlawful in the Roman Empire from its very birth. The Romans were Pagan and worshiped idols; therefore, Christians were atheist. They were accused of being cannibals because they were eating flesh and drinking blood, although to us in the present day is just taking the Lord’s Supper. They had fellowships and love feast, so they accused them of sexual immorality. The foregoing were religious accusations. They were considered criminal because being roman and Pagan was synonymous; therefore, a good citizen would honor Roman gods.Since Christianity was relatively new it was consider a new divisive sect.

Apologists like Justin responded by presenting their arguments in defense of Christianity by possible means such as writings. Justin Martyr was an apologist. Martyr was not his last name it was name given because he was arrested and executed in the year 167. Justin had four audiences in mind which were Pagan intellectuals, the Roman state, Jews and Heretics. Justin engaged in actual public debate. In the year 135 he had a debate with a Jewish leader named Trypho this is known as the Dialogue with Trypho (Fergusson, p.74). Justin told his story and that the Jews and Christians have the same God. Justin told Trypho that the Jewish people were no longer God’s chosen people because they rejected Jesus the Messiah; therefore, he suggested that the become Christians and to be circumcised of heart. Justin also used writing and in 155, he wrote an The First Apology and addressed it to Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar, his son and many others. In his apology, he said that Christians were not cannibals or any of the accusations mentioned against them, but instead the best citizens and moral people. Moreover, he mentions that they were exemplary citizens.

Justin Martyrs First Apology contains several chapters and is very extensive and thorough; in it he concludes with a plea which states: "do not decree death against those who have done no wrong, as you would against enemies ( Justin Martyr, First Apology)." He also subjoins other writings as part of his defense that are very much as using one of our present day precedents in a case. His attachments are Adrian’s epistle, Epistle of Antonius to the common assembly of Asia, and the Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the senate, in which he testifies that the Christians were the cause of his victory.

A good question to ask is what apologetic principles could be used today in a modern context? In today’s world it is also important for Christians to articulate an apologetics defense that is appropriate or in proportion to accusations that arise from today’s secular world, and others in general. In actuality, a very similar approach can be used because we can write books or do public debate or defense when our faith is question as 1 Peter 3:15 says: “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect (Holy Bible, ESV).” Today we also have other forms of media such as internet or TV, and they are good tools to present a defense for the Gospel in a broad and collective form of address.

References:

Fergusson, Everett. Church History volume one from Christ to Pre-reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Holy Bible, ESV

Justin Martyr "First Apology"

Video: Presentation: Apologetics - Being a Christian in a Pagan World by Dr. Smither's Liberty University, 2010