Husband and wife co-pastors

There is a growing trend within Christianity today, particularly among churches of a neo-evangelical persuasion, for husband and wife co-pastors. Indeed more than a growing trend, it now seems to have become the preferred model of ministry for many churches. Joel and Victoria Osteen, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, Randy and Paula White are examples of high profile couples who have adopted this approach to ministry, yet this is not a purely American phenomenon, nor is it restricted to mega-churches. The same pattern can also now seen in many smaller churches. It is quite likely that the new, vibrant, modern, family friendly church which just recently established itself in your town will have a husband and wife co-pastor team. Vineyard Church, Exchange Church and Life Church are but three local examples of churches in Belfast where both husband and wife are described as pastors or leaders of the church. Yet whilst this may be an increasingly popular approach as to how the leadership of a church is organised it raises many questions when compared with the Word of God. It has long been the traditional and biblical view that the position of pastor is not to be taken by a women (a view which has been abandoned by many denominations), but what of a co-pastor? Is that any different? Is it acceptable for a woman to take this position alongside her husband and to join him in the pulpit in a teaching capacity?

Robert Shaw quote on toleration and liberty of conscience

In today's politically correct society where all beliefs are considered to be equally valid, and toleration is presented as making no distinction between them but allowing all views, the following quote is of interest to the Christian. It is taken from the introductory essay in Robert Shaw's Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

'But there is a very prevalent and yet very false method of thinking, or pretending to think, respecting toleration and liberty of conscience. Many seem to be of the opinion that toleration consists in making no distinction between truth and error, but regarding them with equal favour. This opinion, if carefully analysed, would be found to be essentially of an infidel character. Many seem to think that by liberty of conscience is meant that every man should be at liberty to act in everything according to his own inclination, without regard to feelings, convictions and rights of other men. This would, indeed, be to convert liberty into lawlessness, and to make conscience of licentiousness. But the Confession proceeds upon the principle that truth can be distinguished from error, right from wrong; that though conscience cannot be compelled, it may be enlightened; and that when sinful, corrupt and prone to licentiousness, men may be lawfully restrained from the commission of such excesses as are offensive to public feeling, and injurious to the moral welfare of the community. If this be intolerance, it is a kind of intolerance of which none will complain but those who wish to be free from all restraint of law, human or divine.'