Christianity: Doctrine and Ethics

2011-03-22T11:59:00.000-07:00

Dear Faithful Followers,
As you know, it has been a while since I have posted anything on my blog. I am fine, but as venturing out into other areas, namely video postings. I want to invite you to visit my church web site at www.gracepresbyterian.net and click on "Grace Video Resources." There you will find a number of videos dealing with various subjects. Please invite your friends to watch as well.
In addition, my sermons are up on the site. You can either download them or simply listen by clicking on the sermon of your choice.
There are some dealing with the current deaconess controversy in the PCA, a couple of knowing God's will for your life, and on "doing" Ethics. I hope you enjoy these videos as much as I have enjoyed putting them together. Lord willing, there will be more to come.
I hope to get back to blogging soon, but currently my writing schedule and my pastoral duties are keeping me very busy.

Rattlesnake 6

PS: The photo was taken last May at 29 Palms, CA Marine Base. They actually had a M60A1 in the motor pool! I got to take a group of Marines into the belly of the beast and explain to them how everything worked. It was just like being back at the US Army Armor School teaching again. Fun!

Deaconesses: What Does Scripture Say?

2011-02-14T14:29:00.000-08:00

We are asking the question about the biblical legitimacy of female deacons. This is rapidly becoming a controversial issue in the P.C.A., and there are those therefore who are attempting to skirt their vows by the practice of un-ordained, “commissioned” male and female deacons. In reality, this merely complicates matters and advances the notion that if two wrongs don’t make a right, why not try a third? In other words, some of my colleagues are striving to incorporate women into ecclesiastical life in a way not prescribed by the Word of God.

As I mentioned briefly last time, I am very much in favor of using the manifold gifts and talents of godly women in the local congregation. I am also very much in favor of women not only being theologians, but being good theologians. I thoroughly enjoy being in the presence of intelligent and competent sisters in the Lord. What I am not in favor of is placing women in positions for the sake of enculturation or adapting to the culture. This is “contextualization” of the worse and most tendentious kind.

As we approach any issue or subject as Christians, our first question should be: What does Scripture say? Therefore, I will look at the pertinent texts in the Bible that address our subject and give you my impressions and interpretations. I will attempt to put everything on the table and not to avoid the difficult texts. I will not, however, as one woman wrote to me on my blog site (http://rongleason.blogspot.com) force a text to say what it clearly does not say. Her translation of Phoebe’s position in Romans 16:1-2 was “champion.” Clearly, this is a translation that is not supported by exegesis, but rather by an overt feminism and that is a great deal of the problem that we face in the modern Church. That translation is as ridiculous as translating “helper” in Genesis 2:18 as “warrior.” It is totally unwarranted.

Having made these qualifying remarks, we will take a little bit of time and make some brief remarks about Acts 6:1-6; 1 Timothy 3:1-11; 1 Timothy 5:9-10; and Romans 16:1-2. These are summary comments that I made in a recent debate in Georgia. We’ll begin with Acts 6.

Acts 6:1-6

Although some today question whether Acts 6:1-6 is speaking about Deacons, it was an accepted fact by the Reformers that this was the case. As early as the 1530s, Martin Bucer included his support in his work Von der waren Seelsorge (Concerning the True Care of Souls). It was the view of John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, and the other Reformers. It was the view of the Southern Presbyterians John Girardeau, T.E. Peck, Robert Dabney, and James Thornwell. It was also taught by Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper, the Reformed Dutch theologians in general, and more recently Cees Trimp, professor of pastoral theology in Kampen, The Netherlands. It is the view of Simon Kistemaker, F.F. Bruce, and R.C.H. Lenski.

If there is this affirmation by this prestigious gathering of scholars, what might the objections be to seeing the 7 in Acts 6 as Deacons? The first objection is quite understandable: the word Deacon does not appear in the verses in question. How should this objection be answered then? I want to direct your attention to the verses 2 & 4. Verse 2 reads, “And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve (to deacon) tables (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις; diakoneîn trapédzais).’”

Verse 4 is also pertinent for our purposes. When the apostles explain that from this time forward they will devote themselves to prayer and to the ministry (deaconing) of the Word, they are showing that all the New Testament are those of service.

At the end of the day, I grant that “the Seven” are not called “Deacons,” but that is hardly relevant in the book of Acts. For instance, we all acknowledge that Paul was an apostle, but in the book of Acts he is never referred to as an apostle. While these seven spiritual men are never called Deacons, it is clear from the text that what they were called to do was completely in line with the labors of a Deacon.

During the recent debate, my opponent drew attention to the fact that all seven of those chosen were Greeks. This is true. Every name in the list of those chosen is a Greek name. While I believe this manifests the trust in the New Testament Church that the Hebrews would entrust the distribution of food and money to their new Greek brothers in Christ. What is equally significant about “the Seven” is not only that they are all Greeks, but also that they are all men. Verse 3 imparts a clear command: “Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute.” (Emphasis added.)

Since the New Testament Church was in her infancy stage in Acts 6 and if God planned to deviate from his divinely-ordained plan and structure given in creation, this would have been the ideal spot to instigate the change. All things being equal, this was the ideal place and time to introduce the fact that now women are to be included in ecclesiastical offices. Yet the scriptures are silent at a place where we might expect them to speak. Verse 5 is quite explicit reminding us that men (ἀνήρ; anér) were chosen. Luke employs a Greek word that indicates specifically a man as opposed to the general word for “person” or “human being”: anthropos. In other words, he employed the word that often accepts gender; man in contrast to woman.

The intent of verse 6 is that the people of God were actively involved in this process. Listening to the apostles’ request, the Church presented their choices to the apostles, who then, in turn, prayed over them and “ordained and installed” them by the laying on of hands. Calvin comments, “The laying on of hands was a solemn sign of consecration under law. To this end, do the apostles now lay their hands upon the deacons, that they may know that they are offered to God.”[1] Lenski also explains the laying on of hands as an Old Testament symbolic act, which transferred an office, with its duties and privileges to the recipient(s). It also portrayed the bestowal of the divine blessings that were necessary for the important ecclesiastical word (Comp. Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9).[2]

Lenski adds, “These seven were in no sense presbyters of the Jerusalem congregation; they were not elected for that purpose. What is later reported about Stephen and about Philip has nothing to do with their official duties in the congregation. These activities were the result of gifts and of opportunities that extend beyond their specific office. The offices that came into being in the apostolic Church were not fluid, but well defined.”[3] Next time we’ll look at 1 Timothy 3 and 5.

[1] Calvin, Acts, 238.

[2] R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961⁴), 247.

[3] Ibid.

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (XI)

2011-02-04T23:12:00.000-08:00

On Saturday, January 29, 2011 I was privileged to debate one of my esteemed colleagues, H. Alan Foster, from East Lanier Community Church in Buford, GA. Rev. Foster is a church planter from Perimeter Church in Duluth, GA. Our topic was female deaconesses. Rev. Foster spoke in favor of them and I constituted “the loyal opposition.” It was a friendly, “safe” exchange. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the debate and subsequent Q/A were not recorded. Therefore, I have decided to give you the essence of my side of the discussion in installments. I hope that Rev. Foster will also make his paper available to the PCA so that you can hear both sides of the debate.

I would like to go on record stating that this was actually a debate. I hold decided views and settled convictions on this matter; Rev. Foster and I are at opposite ends of the theological spectrum when it comes to deaconesses, as well as the issue of whether it is right to commission male and female deacons. The General Assembly of the PCA has already spoken clearly and unequivocally on this; pastors in the PCA who refuse to conform are, I believe, in an ethical bind. In fact, I am convinced that PCA pastors would not allow the type of blatant rebellion among their congregants that they tolerate in themselves.

My part of the discussion consisted of several parts: an introduction; the biblical background to the controversy; the historical background; the Reformation, Puritan, and Southern Presbyterian background; the Dutch background; the stance of the PCA Book of Church Order and the 36^th General Assembly of the PCA’s decision on the matter; the baneful effects of the so-called Second Great Awakening under the leadership of Charles Finney; and finally, some statements which propose solutions for women who want to serve in Christ’s Church.

Therefore, without further ado, let’s get started with my introduction.

Some Introductory Statements

Before I launch into my various points and arguments, I want to make some preliminary and introductory observations and clarifications.

First, my wife is seminary trained. Before we left Toronto, Canada (my second congregation in a foreign country), my wife enrolled in Biblical Counseling at Ontario Theological Seminary. Because of my call to Southern California (my third congregation in a foreign country), she was only able to finish one-year-and-change of her degree; however, in that time and in all her course work, she maintained a 4.0 GPA. In other words, she is semi-literate. I make this observation to make the point that she is quite qualified theologically and is also well-trained in theology. She is, in a word, a student of the Bible. More than that, she is a godly woman, which, by the way, is a strong biblical qualification.

I often hear the argument that certain congregations in the PCA are dealing with “professional” women. But that is a red herring and a false dilemma when it comes to Christ’s Church, isn’t it? The real question is not whether a particular congregation has women who are CEOs, CFOs, doctors, lawyers, or pantsuit business women. Some congregations have more than others, and in reality, most if not all congregations have such women. I know that mine in California does. But the true distinctions we need to be examining are not the distinctions of “professional” or “non-professional,” but rather “godly” or “ungodly.” I certainly believe that a professional woman can be a very godly woman as well, but I also contend that her place in society does not, in any way, qualify her for an ecclesiastical office anymore than a man’s place in society means that he will be a good office-bearer.

Second, my argument is not about gifted women. My own congregation never ceases to amaze me with a view to how many highly gifted and talented women the Lord has sent to us. The women at Grace Presbyterian Church in Yorba Linda are some of the most talented and accomplished women with whom I have ever come into contact. They are intelligent, competent, and uncompromising in their pursuit of God’s truth. They are God-honoring, Christ-centered, Spirit-filled women. Did I mention that they are also very good shots? What I’m aiming at here is merely this: My argument against deaconesses and “commissioning” male and female deacons without ordaining them has nothing whatsoever to do with women being either inept or incompetent. I respect them highly and greatly and am privileged to be in their presence. However, as I will argue later, I also am fully convinced that the practice of “commissioning” male and female deacons is not merely a matter of preference. I will argue that it is thoroughly unbiblical and that those who make this a practice in their congregations are out of step with both Scripture and the BCO.

Third, I will argue more fully that the oft-debated text in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is not a culturally bound text applying only to a situation in Ephesus when Paul penned these words to Timothy (and the Church). The words are, however, an argument from creation, as the verses 13-15 clearly indicate. The admonition for women to “learn quietly” (ἡσυχίᾳ; hēsuchía) and in “all submissiveness” (ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ; én pásē hupotagē) has reference to the creation order. More than that, it refers to God’s divine order given to both male and female in creation itself. Genesis 1:26-28 makes it abundantly clear that both man and woman are equally created in the image of God. It was God who gave a “helper fit for Adam” (cf. Gen. 2:18). Carolyn Custis James notwithstanding, the Hebrew word for “helper” is not translated “warrior.” This is, on Ms. James’ part, a huge ideological stretch. I have consulted the commentaries of the German scholars Claus Westermann[1] and Gerhand von Rad[2] and they do not translate it as “warrior.” The Dutch Old Testament scholars G.C. Aalders[3] and W.H. Gispen,[4] and also Keil and Delitzsch, John Skinner in the International Critical Commentary, Victor Hamilton in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, and Bruce Waltke, in his commentary on Genesis all translate Eve as “helper.” Waltke opines that the word “helper” “suggests that the man has governmental priority.”[5]

There are a number of reasons why Ms. James’ translation of “helper” as connoting “warrior” is bogus and self-serving, but consider the following: First, why would God hang the tag of “warrior” on Eve and not say something similar about Adam? Was he away at a knitting class getting in touch with his feminine side when God decided on the name “helper”? Thus, why is Eve the warrior and Adam also not the warrior? Nothing is said about Adam in this regard, so why the woman? Second, why was it necessary for anyone to be a “warrior” prior to the Fall? God took them from the good earth and placed them in a perfect garden–a garden where there was no sin. That is definitely something to think about.

God ordained a particular order in creation. Adam and Eve formed, as it were, the first home and the first marriage. As we know it, the home is the divinely appointed union in which the husband’s servant leadership of his wife and the wife’s submission to and honor of her husband is the bedrock of society and the Church. The divine order established and ordained by God in the home was to be carried over into the Church. When I say this, I am not referring merely to the New Testament Church. Article 27 of the Belgic Confession says this about the nature of God’s Church: “We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church, which is a holy congregation of true Christian believers, all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by his blood, sanctified, and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This Church has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof…” (Emphasis added.) The order God established in the home is meant to carry over into the Church. The divine order is Adam as the federal head and Eve as his helper. Adam is not superior in his creation in the image of God or in the possession of spiritual gifts. There is, however, a functional order and subordination ordained by God that rules out inferiority. This, I am convinced, is what Paul is describing in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. He argues from creation and not from culture.

Fourth, no one I know denies that women appear throughout Scripture as those helping in myriad ways. These are Old Testament and New Testament saints who are highly gifted and talented women, and they do not require an ecclesiastical office to use their gifts in a God-honoring manner. This is an essential point to which we’ll return later. Christians, all Christians, have spiritual gifts and those gifts are to be used for the benefit of the entire congregation; however, not everyone who is gifted has an ecclesiastical office.

This leads me to my fifth introductory remark. The Bible is “restrictive” in many ways, both to men and to women. Therefore, “One must not assume that any restriction, even if it does exclude women from certain aspects of ecclesiastical leadership on the basis of gender, is a new or unusual way for God to work.”[6] Allow me to use an example involving men. No one in the Old Testament appointed himself to the priesthood, did he? The priests were limited to Aaron and to his descendants (cf. Ex. 28:43-29:9; Lev. 8:1-36; 10:8-11; 21:1-15). But there was even a limitation within the limitation. Not all those in Aaron’s lineage were allowed to serve as priests. Being a relative of Aaron was not a free pass to seminary. Not every man in the priestly tribe could serve as a priest. Leviticus 21:5, 16-21 makes it crystal clear that those with certain physical defects were categorically forbidden to serve. Patterson is precisely correct when she concludes, “God has sovereignly reserved the right to set the general boundaries for leadership in the church.”[7]

Finally, those Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA who do not act in accordance with their vows to uphold the clear and unequivocal teachings of Scripture and the BCO are in an ethical bind. The major problem is that at the ordination and installation of Teaching and Ruling Elders, a solemn vow is made publicly. It is a sacred vow made in relationship to an ecclesiastical office that cannot be disregarded with impunity.

[1] Claus Westermann, Genesis, in Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976²).

[2] Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, in Das alte Testament Deutsch, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972.)

[3] G.C. Aalders, Genesis, in Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift, (Kampen: Kok, 1933).

[4] W.H. Gispen, Genesis, in Commentaar op het Oude Testament, (Kampen: Kok, 1974).

[5] Bruce Waltke, Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 88.

[6] Dorothy K. Patterson, “What Should a Woman Do in the Church?” in Andreas J. Köstenberger & Thomas Schreiner, Women in the Church, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005²), 165.

[7] Ibid., 166.

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (X)

2011-01-18T17:47:00.000-08:00

Since the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries, theologians and pastors have begun to focus, ostensibly, more on ecclesiology (or to put the matter into more colloquial words: “Doing church”). I prefer the qualifier “ostensibly,” because while many are claiming to present a new ecclesiology to the theological world, they actually fall far short of their goal. A recent case in point is Deep Church, a book by Jim Belcher. In reality, the book does not come close to living up to either word in the title. It certainly is not deep, for it is void of any historical continuity whatsoever. Superficial Church would have been a more apt title. And even though it promises an outline for a new ecclesiology, it does not deliver. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the author spends more time telling the reader about his luncheon engagements with “name brand” emergent non-leader leaders than outlining his thesis.

Since the advent of this period in which the concentration has been on ecclesiology, there has been a parallel lack of focus on soteriology (or, the doctrine of salvation). The doctrine of the Church is certainly in the foreground these days, but there is also a great deal of confusion about biblical ecclesiology. In the interim, we have become accustomed to seeing and using words like “ecclesial” and “missional.” It seems that everyone has a different sense of what those words mean and attempts at implementing them can range from the ludicrous to the more or less traditional.

As I begin this installation, I have not lost sight of the fact that we are dealing with the issue of deacons. Simultaneously, the deacons are part of the government of the Church, or at least are covered in Systematic Theology books under the locus of the Church. Therefore, it stands to reason that to misunderstand the true nature of ecclesiology is also to miss the function of deacons, even if you tell everyone around you that you are concerned about the destitute, homeless, and down-and-out.

From One Extreme to the Other

On January 8, 2011, OneNewsNow.com carried an example that is left of center on the ecclesial and missional spectrum. An article titled, “Sing of Salvation…Sip Some Suds,” reports about people meeting in a small pub in Two Harbors, MN for “worship.” The Associated Press, which reported the article, surmised that “It’s one unconventional place of worship around the country fostered by an evangelical movement known as ‘the emerging church.’”[1] Rarely would a gathering of 17 people get any ink at all, but times have changed. The author, Patrick Condon, says that this gathering is about “chasing God,” which, when you think about it, is simply another way of saying that it is about “seeking God,” (which is simply not true). Romans 3:10-11 is crystal clear that people do not seek God, let alone chase after him. However, as in other instances, these types of biblical truths have not deterred those in both the mega church as well as in the emergent church movement from speaking about “seekers.” What Paul writes in Romans 3 is easily understandable: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God.” (Emphasis added.)

According to the accurate reporting, the gathering in the pub was informal (this is one of the typical styles of the emergent church movement).. There were two candles (candles are typically present in emergent churches) placed strategically on four bar-top tables which had been shoved into circular formation. One of the participants, “Fish” Anderson (“Fish” must be a Christian already because we all know that the fish is an early symbol of the Christian faith), sipped a beer as he cast occasional glances at the NFL pre-game show on the TV in Dunnigan’s Pub & Grub. Chris Fletcher, the non-leader leader told those who were still sober that while he wanted the time to be as informal as possible, the main goal was “creating an open space for Jesus to come into our lives, then he does the transforming work.” Well, there you have it; right out of the Bible. Create an open space for Jesus and then he comes and does his transforming work. If I am not mistaken, that is a direct quotation from 2 Hesitations 3:16. We are told in the article that Mr. Chris Fletcher is an emergency medical technician, part-time bartender, and seminary student. He should demand a refund from the seminary he is attending.

The other end of the spectrum is the typically traditional congregation that may be rightly defined as “liturgical.” In fact, some of these congregations qualify as “high church.” Some of these pastors wear clerical collars, while others preach without pulpits in open-collared shirts. Still others wear coats and ties. There is not one set format. These congregations tend to be at the opposite end of the ecclesial and missional spectrum from their emergent church movement counterparts, although they may express some sympathies for emergents. In addition, these pastors and their congregations tend to desire to be culturally aware and want very much to “engage the culture,” as they call it.

While the emergents at Dunnigan’s swill their beer to the glory of somebody, the other hip crowd feels more at home with chardonnay and brie cheese, and with a jazz quartet playing some Miles Davis prior to the worship service. There is one other characteristic of this other form of ecclesial and missional church and that is this: It seeks to incorporate women both in the worship and leadership. Despite the fact that both Scripture and the history of the Church up to and including the Reformation forbade women reading in worship, leading in prayer, and fulfilling some manmade, quasi-official leadership position, these churches encourage women to do these very things

While most of these ecclesial and missional churches know scripturally and intuitively that the Bible denies women pastors and other elders, they tend to “push the envelope” and by sleight of hand incorporate women into the deaconate—by hook or by crook. In my own church affiliation, the Presbyterian Church in America, there are some who have non-ordained, “commissioned” female deacons; this is nowhere supported in the Book of Church Order and what is more, it flies in the face of Presbyterian history. This phenomenon has progressed (regressed?) to the point that some churches have these women listed on their websites as deacons. But there is a double whammy involved here: In their efforts to give women a recognized role in local congregations, male deacons are not ordained either. Thus, by first admitting women to a position that Scripture denies them, these churches err. They further compound their error by then denying ordination to qualified spiritual men to the office of deacon.

We previously took an in-depth look at the concepts of proto-deacon and deacon found in the New Testament. In the historical analysis provided in this work, we noted that the rise of deaconesses in the Eastern Orthodox Church is easily traceable, while the same phenomenon is not evident in the Western Church of the same period. Therefore, even though a number of pastors and theologians argue for the historicity of deaconesses, their claim collapses under the weight of the historical evidence which points to the contrary.

The major thrust of the upcoming series of articles will be to define New Testament deacons, while simultaneously presenting a biblically sound ecclesiology. There is a particular brand of ecclesiology that does justice to both the Old as well as the New Testaments, which pays particular attention to the confessional statements, and is pleased to listen to the (re)discoveries of the period known as the Reformation.

To that end, then, I want to begin with one of the very important but almost forgotten Reformers of Strasbourg, Martin Bucer. From there, I would like to look at Calvin’s thoughts on deacons, and then progress to examine some lesser known, but highly important Reformed synodical decisions: The Articles of Wezel (1568), the Synod of Dordrecht (1578), and the Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619). Eventually, we will take a look at the comments of Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), and the writings of Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, and Frederick Rutgers (who wrote a commentary on the Church Order of Dordrecht).[2]

[1] Patrick Condon, “Sing of salvation…sip some suds,” http://www.OneNewsNow.com, (1.8.2011): 1.

[2] F.L. Rutgers, Kerkelijke Adviezen, Deel I, (Kampen: Kok, 1921).

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (IX)

2011-01-08T09:04:00.001-08:00

How did the Church of Jesus Christ think about the office of deacon during and after the time known as the Reformation? This is an important question to ask. We might end up disagreeing with what we discover about what the “fathers” of the Reformation thought and taught, but it is instructive to ask, especially if we are part of the Reformed and Presbyterian heritage. There is a reason, after all, that these men are called the “fathers” of the church. Our investigation is all the more urgent in light of the fact that there is both confusion and controversy regarding this ecclesiastical office.

Some today even question whether it is proper to speak of the “office” of deacon. Others wonder why there must be a specified number of deacons in a local congregation and why, for example, every person in the congregation cannot be considered a deacon. Of course, one of the areas of controversy these days has to do with whether or not deacons have female counterparts known as deaconesses. Those who use this title explain that they are not referring to an equivalent office or position, but rather merely want to use the honorific title of deaconess. In the course of this book, we will take a closer look at this and other positions.

Moreover, this book will be a combination of scriptural exegesis of the pertinent texts as well as an examination of some of the confessional statements of the Church and what was taught in Church History concerning deacons and deaconesses. It is my plan that at the end of the investigation you will be more fully and adequately armed to engage in this crucial discussion. I must point out that there is a lot at stake here. Whereas there are those who eschew the “domino theory,” there is an element of truth in that theory in this sense: Almost invariably and inevitably where church affiliations have started down this road—with, I might add, the best of intentions—the rule of “unintended consequences” has intruded into the picture and churches that have allowed an office of deaconess have wandered from orthodoxy. This has not been true in every instance; there are some churches that have deaconesses and yet still retain a great deal of their orthodoxy.

In the pages that follow, you will notice a wide diversity of churches that have employed deaconesses. A number of them fall outside the pale of either Reformed or Presbyterian congregations. Many of the more liberal mainline churches such as the United Methodists and Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have even gone much further than having deaconesses and have ordained ruling and teaching elders who are women. We will not even discuss the fact that these so-called “mainline” churches have lengthy and time-consuming discussions regarding the ordination of practicing male and female homosexuals. Personally, it defies all reason and common sense that a church of Jesus Christ would even have that conversation.

I would hasten to add that denominations that have those conversations are usually embroiled in other conversations that defy common sense as well. These same groups engage in debates surrounding “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the environment, global and domestic poverty, wealth redistribution, universal health care, war/pacifism, racial relationships, multiculturalism, and the like. Do not get me wrong: It is not as if I am adverse to such debates and discussions. I believe that they are needed and are healthy. My objection to liberal congregations holding these discussions, however, is that as often as not they end up defending and mouthing the platitudes of liberal, progressive politicians.[1] In addition, some of the spokesmen for these “gatherings” are people like Jim Wallis, a self-avowed Marxist, and Brian McLaren, who is either very confused or who simply refuses to answer tough questions or both—probably both. In other words, one of the greatest dangers for these church affiliations is that in the midst of their critique and criticism of what they call “the Religious Right” they are constantly in danger of becoming spokespersons for the Democratic Party.

Is that such a bad thing? In a very real sense, the answer is, “Yes, it is such a bad thing.” I will merely cite two examples of what I mean. Columnist and author Ann Coulter, in her book Godless, has chronicled how abortion is “The Holiest Sacrament” among liberals. Their hypocrisy is disclosed as Coulter writes: “To a liberal, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.”[2] In a separate and different article Coulter opines that liberals have it backwards when they assert that conservatives claim God is on their side. It is the liberals, rather, who “are demanding God’s banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and a picture of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.”[3]

The anomalies surrounding Christians joining hands with a liberal, progressive political party are legion and incongruous. That leads me to my second example. Christians are called upon to be generous and truly aid the poor, the orphan, and the widow. While liberals talk a good game about caring for the marginalized, the destitute, the homeless, and the down-and-out, their actions typically end at mere talk. But we hear them espousing the cause of this class of individual often? Yes, we do, but characteristically only when it involves other people’s money and not their own. For instance, one study of charitable giving concluded that, “Conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.”[4]

There is a great deal more to be said, but we need to go forward and begin our investigation of the confessional statements which come to us from the time of the Reformation. I simply wanted to take a moment to draw your attention to this spiritual discrepancy. That being said, we shall now begin by looking at the Belgic Confession. From there we shall proceed chronologically to inquire what the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions have taught on the question of deacons and their office. As we perform this undertaking, we need to keep in mind that what we are dealing with is not merely the question of the office of deacon, but also the larger question of ecclesiology. Quite often that point is either neglected or forgotten in the current discussions surrounding deacons. The “deacon question” is merely one isolated comment in a much larger debate. Some today would call this a matter of how one “does church.”

But there is a major flaw in the modern jargon. “Doing church” is a far cry from patterning every aspect of our lives, including our worship of the Lord God Almighty, according to his Word. The modern terminology smacks of “doing your own thing” more than it does obedience to the will and Word of the Lord. In fact, that is precisely what occurs, as often as not, when you engage someone about how they define “doing church.”

Some might object that performing a confessional reconnaissance is tantamount to placing the confessions either above or on an equal plane with Holy Scripture. That is truly a tedious objection, so let us dispense with it from the outset. The best way to do that is to allow the confessions to speak to that issue themselves. Article 7 of the Belgic Confession, which we shall look at in more detail in a moment, says the following: “We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.”[5]

This confession makes it crystal clear that “the whole manner of worship which God requires of us” is clearly laid out in the Bible so that there ought not to be any confusion about how we are to “do church.” The exclusivity of the Word of God is laid out in no uncertain terms. But what about the relationship between the Bible and any of the confessions? Article 7 continues and states, “Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule which the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.”[6]

The Westminster Confession of Faith uses the same tone when it says in 1.10: “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”[7] To the reasonable and open mind, these statements are convincing.

The Belgic Confession

The primary author of the Belgic Confession, Guido de Brès, completed this confessional statement in 1561. He died as a martyr for this faith in 1567. A dependence on John Calvin is discernible in this work along with a number of independent declarations. In short, de Brès used a great deal of Calvin’s labors to his advantage but also expressed himself in a different yet orthodox fashion. “In the Netherlands it was at once gladly received by the churches, adopted by the National Synods, and held during the last three decades of the sixteenth century. After a careful revision, not of the contents but of the text, the great Synod of Dort in 1618-19 adopted this Confession as one of the Doctrinal Standards of the Reformed Churches, to which all office-bearers of the churches were required to subscribe. Its excellence as one of the best symbolical statements of Reformed doctrine has been generally recognized.”[8]

Since I mentioned that the questions pertaining to deacons are set within the context of the question of biblical ecclesiology, it will behoove us to take a couple of moments and sketch what de Brès taught in this confession regarding the Christian Church. His discussion can be found in articles 27-29 of his statement. It is Article 28 that is particularly pertinent for our purposes here. That article begins by asserting the following: “We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and outside it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof…”[9] Article 29 establishes the marks or note by which the true Church of Jesus Christ is known as well as the marks of Christians. It concludes with a paragraph describing the marks of the false Church.

From there, de Brès launches into a discussion of the government of the Church and its offices: the ministers, elders, and deacons of the Church, and the order and discipline of the Church, respectively. The opening salvo of Article 30 is reminiscent of what today is known as the “Regulative Principle.” It states, “We believe that this true Church must be governed by that spiritual polity which our Lord has taught us in his Word…”[10] In other words, we are to derive how God’s Church must be governed (how we “do church”) from God. Three office-bearers are named in this article: ministers, elders, and deacons. The purpose of these God-ordained offices is that “by these means the true religion may be preserved, and the true doctrine everywhere propagated, likewise transgressors punished and restrained by spiritual means; also, that the poor and distressed may be relieved and comforted, according to their necessities.”[11] What de Brès describes for us is a full-orbed, robust, and vibrant biblical ministry that includes the preservation of God’s truth, the propagation of biblical doctrine, church discipline where necessary, and mercy ministry. The concluding sentence of this article is the qualifier regarding who these office-bearers are to be: “By these means everything will be carried on in the Church with good order and decency, when faithful men are chosen, according to the rule prescribed by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy.”[12]

Note how de Brès came full circle in his conclusion. He began with the government and offices of the Church being derived from Scripture and he ends the same way. He is also persuaded that it is when God’s Word is followed that “doing church” will transpire decently and in good order. The scriptural requirement is choosing faithful men to fill these ecclesiastical offices. The emphasis on Scripture carries over to Article 31.

The subsequent article starts out with a prescription: “We believe that the minister of God’s Word, the elders, and the deacons ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the Church, with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of God teaches.”[13] A few points of clarification are in order here. First, according to de Brès deacons hold an ecclesiastical office.

Second, even though there might be a sense in which it is true that everyone in a local congregation should exercise certain gifts of mercy, this does not preclude electing faithful men to fulfill the office of deacon.

Third, the calling to an ecclesiastical office must be done properly, and qualified men are not to put themselves forward, but are bound to wait until it pleases God to call them.[14] The remainder of the article deals with the honor and respect due to ministers and other elders.

Article 32 is titled “The Order and Discipline of the Church.” Office-bearers are to perform internal personal checks to “take care that they do not depart from those things which Christ, our only Master, has instituted.”[15]

This article also excludes the very popular notion of “creativity” as far as these matters are concerned. The Church is called upon to “reject all human inventions.” With this in mind, let us return to a somewhat popular notion among some in the Presbyterian Church in America that everyone is a kind of deacon. That is purely a human invention because Scripture teaches otherwise. It is a deviation from the Word of God. Do we know better than the Lord? As “cool,” plausible, or feasible as it sounds, a deaconry comprised of the entire congregation would make the meetings somewhat ungainly and cumbersome. Of course, we realize that in these manmade models everyone does not attend and everyone is not elected by the congregation. So where does this kind of thinking originate? It is certainly not found in Scripture in the sense in which it is meant and intended currently; it is a “human invention” and therefore must be rejected.

[1] See Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010) & James Davison Hunter, To Change the World, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

[2] Ann Coulter, Godless, (NY: Crown Forum, 2006), 78.

[3] Ann Coulter, “Scrooge Was A Liberal,” www.humanevents.com, (12.22.2010), 1.

[4] Ibid., 2. Coulter proceeds and writes, ‘Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity—$2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large…. On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more—and 50 times more to secular charities—than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.”

[5] The Belgic Confession, Article 7, in Ecumenical and Reformed Creeds and Confessions, (Dyer, IN: Mid-America Reformed Seminary, 1991), 19-20.

[6] Ibid., 20.

[7] Ibid., 91.

[8] Ibid., 17.

[9] Ibid., 29. Emphasis added.

[10] Ibid., 30.

[11] Ibid., 31.

[12] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[13] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[14] Ibid. “Therefore everyone must take heed not to intrude himself by improper means, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him; that he may have testimony of his calling, and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord.

[15] Ibid.

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (VIII)

2010-12-03T20:26:00.000-08:00

This is now the eighth look we have taken at Acts 6:1-6. In past installments, we have noted that this passage additionally teaches us an important lesson about under-shepherds and their spiritual priorities. In 6:4, the apostles outline the task of the shepherd this way: “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” All of us in the pastoral ministry would do well to heed these words.

There are a couple of other spiritual instructions that accompany their words that I want to draw to your attention before we move on. First, verse 3 demonstrates that the selection of these men to serve tables involved both the congregation and the apostles. The apostles urge the congregation (“brothers”) to make a search of seven qualified men of good repute, full of the Spirit, and full of wisdom. Not just anyone would do, but only those within the congregation that met specified criteria.

Second, once the selection was made, the apostles would appoint them to the position or office, presumably after they had fully ensured that those selected by the congregation met the biblical criteria set forth.

Third, verse 6 informs us that “they” (the congregation) set these men before the apostles, who then prayed and laid their hands on them.

John Owen (1616-1683) asserts that these principles still apply today. He writes, “The same care is still incumbent on the ordinary pastors and elders of the churches, so far as the execution of [charity] doth not interfere with their principle work and duty.”[1] Alexander Strauch contends that the Acts 6:1-6 passage solved the dilemma presenting itself to the early Church and as such, “the apostles formed a new body of church officials.”[2]

As the early Church was confronted with the necessity of mercy ministry, it needed to ensure that it maintained integrity, effectiveness, and good management of its funds and resources. It is true that “Mismanagement and disorganization ruins families, businesses, governments, and churches.”[3] Therefore, the congregation and apostles chose seven spiritually gifted men and recognized them publically for the task of administration and of mercy in particular. This public recognition was accompanied by the laying on of the apostles’ hands.

“But,” someone may object, “doesn’t 1 Peter 4:10 teach that every Christian has a spiritual gift from God that is to be used in serving others?” Yes it does. This begs the question: If all Christians are to be servants, why then were the seven designated, or singled out, as it were, from the rest of the gifted people and given an official office? These questions often come from church models that have no deacons because they are convinced that 1 Peter 4:10 says it all. They argue that everyone should be a deacon or have a deacon’s heart and be willing to extend mercy. There is an element of truth in that of course. All Christians should be willing and prepared to exercise mercy according to Scripture; not all are, but they should be. But even if they are willing, not all are equally proficient at acts of mercy. Some kind souls might give away “the farm” to the first person that gives them a sob story only to learn later that they’ve been scammed.

Administering charitable funds requires character that frankly and realistically some do not possess. Being a good steward with God’s money at the congregational level—at any level really, but especially at the congregational level—requires “irreproachable character, godly wisdom, and administrative skills…. Therefore, qualified, official servants are needed to perform these duties.”[4] The “everybody should be a deacon” approach is both naïve and unbiblical. Our Lord warned that religious scam artists abounded in his day, preying on widows and the elderly (cf. Luke 20:47). Strauch sagely warns, “No church should expose people who need the most protection and care to unknown or unstable people.”[5] The sequel to this truth is this: Churches should follow biblical prescriptions, not their own ideas, creativity, or ingenuity in understanding that “select servants will always be needed to officially represent the local church in delicate matters of trust and to coordinate the church’s charity.”[6]

Who Are Those Guys?

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid has some of the best one-liners ever. One of the most notable examples is the question: Who are those guys? Who were “the seven” in Acts 6:1-6? We know their names and we understand that all seven were Greeks. The real question that has been posed down through the centuries regards whether they were deacons or prototypes for deacons.

Clearly, Acts describes, in part, the “developing Church.” As I have pointed out before, nowhere in Acts is Paul called an apostle, yet we known that he was. By the same token, it is unreasonable to conclude that merely because the seven Greek men in Acts 6 were never called deacons that there is absolutely no connection between them and the deacons described by Paul in his letters. It is clear that rather early in the Church’s existence “the office of deacon was a recognized position with an official title in at least two churches established by Paul.”[7]

The New Testament is clear that Paul was concerned about organizational matters in addition to preaching the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. (See Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; 5:17-25; Titus 1:5-9.) We are also aware that he appointed elders in most of the churches he planted (Acts 14:23). Finally, Paul’s great concern for the poor is expressed in his letters (Acts 24:17; Gal. 2:10; Rom. 15:25-27). Everything was to be done decently, in good order, and uniformly in all the New Testament churches (1 Cor. 4:17; 11:16; 14:40).

Thus, “Whatever position one takes regarding the relationship between Acts 6 and the later deacons, the concept of deacons, as derived from Paul’s two letters, is not altered.”[8] The italicized words ought to be decisive for modern pastors and their respective congregations. At the very least, PCA congregations and their leadership ought to be consummately concerned to “do church” (which is a lot like being missional and ecclesial) according to the Word of God. The aberrations that exist in the PCA currently regarding unordained, but commissioned deacons and deaconesses are unbiblical, simply put. The same holds true for those who preach the mantra that everyone is a deacon. That wasn’t true in the early Church and it is not true today.

We can argue and discuss among ourselves endlessly about these matters, but the bottom line is that when it comes to these two practices in the PCA there is not a shred of biblical support for not following the practices laid out in Acts 6:6 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13.

[1] John Owen, “Of Deacons,” in The Works of John Owen, Vol. 16, (William Goold [ed.]), (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1968), 145.

[2] Alexander Strauch, The New Testament Deacons, (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1992), 30.

[3] Ibid., 32.

[4] Ibid., 43.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 53.

[8] Ibid. Emphasis added.

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (VII)

2010-11-19T16:38:00.001-08:00

We are drawing some principles from Acts 6:1-6 regarding the appointment of “the Seven” regarding modern deacons. This is being done in conjunction with the belief by some in the Presbyterian Church in America that deacons do not require the laying on of hands, ordination, and certainly not the identical charge given to the congregation regarding elders, since their functions are so very different.

Different Offices; Different Functions

It is not being argued here that the respective offices of elder and deacon have identical functions. That they are different is quite clear from the Acts 6 verses. The apostles had one function: to preach and to pray; the Seven were appointed to serve tables, to serve the needy. Alexander Strauch comments, “Some people might find it hard to believe that appointing men to care for poor widows and handle money would require the laying on of the apostles’ hands.”[1]To some, perhaps it seems odd that the laying on of hands was necessary for the Seven to serve the needy. Nevertheless, it is recorded that the laying on of hands was indeed the case (Acts 6:6).[2]

A couple of key points are noteworthy here. First, all seven of “the Seven” were men. If there were going to be a change or shift in the gender of office-bearers in general or of deacons in particular, Acts would have been a magnificent place to spell that out. That is not the case, however. The Church was no longer limited to Israel, but was now inclusive of all nations, peoples, and languages. The Old Testament tradition and background for leaders and elders was exclusively male. Keith Van Dam points out the following regarding elders: “The Hebrew term used for the office of elder in the Old Testament (zaqen) is derived from the word meaning ‘beard’ (zaqan).”[3] This is instructive because as far as I can remember, I never dated a woman with a beard. I did date an Italian girl in Charleston once, who I think had a bit of a mustache, but beyond that I’m not aware of anyone else.

Ed Clowney, writing in the book Order in the Offices, follows Van Dam when he states, “Even before the appearance of Israel as a nation, we find elders in the Old Testament. The zāqēn is a venerable leader, often a noble or administrator. Originally the term meant one who wears a beard, a mature man, then an older man (Judg. 19:16). Seniority and authority are closely joined in patriarchal society. The heads of families and clan exercise authority commensurate with their status.”[4] Throughout the Old Testament the elders represent the people in both political and religious activities. This was so much the case that “At the time of the Exodus, the ‘elders of Israel’ formed a definite body of men whose authority was recognized. The Septuagint translates ‘the elders of Israel’ as ‘the senate of Israel.’”[5] Clowney appends these instructive words, “What is striking about the place of elders in the Pentateuch is the way in which those who naturally exercise authority by their seniority, family position, or leadership are given ruling responsibility within the covenant.”[6] Of course, these men were not expected to rule either autonomously or in terms of leaning on their own understanding. As covenant leaders in the covenant community, the expectation was that they would exercise their derived authority by thinking God’s thoughts after him. In other words, they would follow the directives of Scripture and not deviate from them.

When we arrive at the New Testament, the principles are the same as those explained in the Old Testament. The difference between the testaments in terms of the office bearers can be summarized this way: “Certainly the great change in the pattern of government among the people of God is brought about by the fulfillment of all office in the mediatorial calling and work of Jesus Christ.”[7] That is to say, “the shift of the exercise of authority is to the community under Christ.”[8] The further explanation of what Clowney is saying is that “Men with prophetic gifts minister Christ’s word with authority, yet they are not originators the word: the authority is ministerial—not theirs, but Christ’s.”[9] In other words, authority in the New Testament Church is also derived from and based on Christ’s perfect, accomplished work. Both the office bearers as well as the congregation must remain acutely aware of this fact.

Clowney contends in addition that the New Testament offices must be viewed through the lenses of God’s providential preparation. Just as the Old Testament was the time of “promise” with regards to God’s coming Messiah, so the New Testament is the time of “fulfillment.” That being the case, “The offices that exist among the new people of God are constituted by Christ’s gifts.”[10] Quite practically, the providential angle expects us to realize that the older structures vis-à-vis “office” are not destroyed, not abrogated; rather, they are fulfilled in Christ.[11] With this as background, then, let’s look at the New Testament deacon.

Ordain or Commission?

The biblical example of laying on of hands at the ordination of deacons tends to be problematic for those in the PCA who desire to commission male and female—but really, this is mostly about females—deacons. Since that portion of the PCA Book of Church Order regarding ordination and installation of deacons is ignored, these colleagues are intentionally neglecting what God ordained to be done. That ought to count for something. For those who do go the route of laying on of hands on both male and female deacons, then I would ask where the biblical precedent and prescription for such an action can be found.

In some of the “site churches” in the PCA, there are no deacons at all. That’s just yet another means of avoiding what God teaches us in his Word. The argument for no ordained or unordained deacons goes something like this: Every member should be called upon to render service. That is correct as far as it goes, but it simply does not go nearly far enough, does it? It is rather remarkable that in a day and age when so many claim to have re-focused on ecclesiology or, to use the modern term, on what it means to be “ecclesial,” surprisingly few have tackled some of the most rudimentary aspects of the Church’s spiritual government and spiritual power.[12]

While it is patently true that the visible covenant community at large is given derived authority in the Word of God, and while it is also true that “the authority belongs to the whole membership, and is therefore democratic,” it does not follow that everyone in the congregation possesses equal derived authority.[13] The authority comes from Christ himself and “The Christian Democracy is also a Theocracy.”[14] In the Christian Church then, “A real authority is bestowed, and real powers are given” and the “ratification of the exercise of power depends on its Christ-like use.”[15] That is to say, this derived authority is to be employed in the way the Head of the Church declares it should be used—engaging the culture notwithstanding. What we observe in Scripture is an “ecclesiastical order and arrangement of service” that is ordained, delineated, and prescribed by the Lord.[16]

This Christian community is “self-governing” in the sense of self-governing following the precise dictates, commands, and instructions of the Word of God. The congregation is typically intimately involved in the election of those office-bearers that meet the biblical criteria and qualifications. For instance, “The vice-apostle Matthias and the Seven were elected by the assembly, and a similar assembly appointed Barnabas to be its delegate to Antioch.”[17]

There were, according to the Pauline corpus pastors, overseers, elders, and deacons in the early Church. This leads Lindsay to conclude that “The references to the office-bearers of the local churches are always in the plural, and the government must have been collegiate.”[18] My point here is simply that the man-made idea that “everyone is a deacon” is not biblical and needs to be put into a proper perspective. What Scripture clearly teaches is that in the early Church, in the last decades of the first century, elders and deacons were chosen by the local congregations. Moreover, “each Christian congregation had for its office-bearers a body of deacons and a body of elders—whether separated into two colleges or forming one must remain unknown—and that the elders took the ‘oversight’ while the deacons performed the ‘subordinate services.’”[19]

These established office bearers “watched over the lives and behaviour of the members of the community; they looked after the poor, the infirm, and the strangers; and in the absence of members of the prophetic ministry they presided over the public worship, especially over the Holy Supper.”[20] Many Southern Presbyterians wrote both frequently and passionately about how the equivalent of a teaching elder should not take on the tasks of the deacon, except when compelled to do so, and then only for a period of short duration. Lord willing, we shall examine some of those forebears in future issues.

There is a good lesson in this for PCA church planters who tend to be “the show” when they first start out. This is a dismal and precarious position to be in for any number of reasons, not least of which is that bad, unbiblical habits can be formed without elder and deacon wisdom to guide the church planter’s decisions. In addition, the church pastor can become all too accustomed all too quickly not to have to confer with others. Speaking about the early Church, Lindsay points out that “There is no trace of one man, one pastor, at the head of any community.”[21] Each congregation ought to strive to put a biblical model of office bearers in place as quickly as possible.

Into the Second Century

Reading through the New Testament, one can discern “the local churches creating their ministry.”[22] What did this look like? There were two changes in the understanding and application of the New Testament offices in the second century. The first change focused on the prophetic ministry and the other concentrated on the local ministry. The “prophetic” ministry passed out of existence, “its functions being appropriated by the permanent office-bearers of the local churches.”[23]

As we go forward in our investigation of this time frame, we are going to investigate the teachings of two particular documents: the Didache (or, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) and the Apostolic Canons. In the former, “we find the Christian society ruled by a college of office-bearers who are called ‘overseers and deacons.’”[24] The latter speaks to us about “a session of elders and a body of deacons.”[25]

In the previously cited article, Ed Clowney reminds us that “We find the Didache urging that bishops and deacons be honored with prophets and teachers (15:1-2).”[26] He opines that it is possible that the earliest “deacons” were also evangelists, given the exigencies of the early Church community. If this is the case, then there is no reason to doubt that those deacons possessed a form, some form of authority. It is also noteworthy that the Didache nowhere suggests that females should fill any of the ecclesiastical offices listed.

The Apostolic Canons show us “what a small Christian community was in the last decades of the second century.”[27] This document gives us a “snapshot” of the “birth and growth of a Church with its complete organization.”[28] Through the AP, it becomes manifestly clear that” every body of Christians however small is ordered to form itself into a congregation, and the implied thought that the Christian life must be lived within an orderly Christian society before the full benefits which accompany it can be enjoyed.”[29] “But,” someone may object, “what about church plants that have no office bearers from the outset?”

In a very real sense, the Apostolic Canons took such a situation into account. It was written in a time “when a few Christian families found themselves the only believers in the midst of a surrounding paganism.”[30] (Apparently, the Apostolic Canons were written by some surfer dude living in Southern California when for Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown served as Governor.) This document prescribes that “Every church must have at least three deacons, who are to be the ministers of the people in their private and home life. They are to report on any unseemly conduct which may call for discipline at the hands of the elders.”[31] In other words, the deacons not merely possessed authority in the early Church, but they also worked closely with the elders. Deacons had the duty to move among the people and to warn, to exhort, and, if necessary, to threaten.[32] It seems that early deacons knew mixed martial arts and were acquainted with 10-12 Christian hit men.

They also went to the wealthier members of the early Christian community and “insisted” that they open their hands to support the poor and for other ecclesiastical needs.[33] There is no hint in the Sources of deaconesses. Deacons are consistently and repeatedly described as men. It is also clear that the controversial and disputed text in 1 Timothy 3:11 was not taken to refer to female deacons.

Each congregation was to have “a ministry of women.” Aha! Deaconesses. Sorry, no cigar. Congregations were to appoint three women and “They are called widows. According to the Sources, two were to persevere in prayer for all those who are in temptation. One is to assist the women visited with sickness. “She must be ready for service, discreet, communicating what is necessary to the elders…”[34]

One final comment for this installment and that has to do with the appointment of a Reader. A number of PCA churches seem to find it chic and “culturally aware” to have a female “reader” in the service. This is viewed by some pastors as an indicator that the congregation is not comprised of luddites. They might not refer to her as that, but these congregations have females who read, lead in prayer, or both and that on a regular basis. In fact, it is expected that she will. There would be questions if a female did not read or pray or both. Briefly, the “Reader” described in the Sources was to be a male who was “an experienced Christian.”[35] In addition, “His duty is to read the Scriptures during Divine Service, and it is required that he should have a good voice and a clear delivery…. He is to be able to expound the Scripture that he has read.”[36] This is a far cry from being “hip” in a pagan culture and allowing a female to do what Scripture and the later Christian tradition forbids. Lindsay is spot on when he writes, “The Reader in these ancient times did what the pastor or bishop was expected to do in later times.”[37] Precisely.

God has carefully declared and outlined what ecclesiology is and how Christians are to “do church,” to coin the trendy phrase. It used to be that churches took Exodus 25:9 seriously and understood that when God told Moses how to construct the tabernacle, he was not interested in Moses’ creativity or his ability to reach out to the nations surrounding Israel. Rather, he was more concerned about Moses thinking God’s thoughts after him and doing things God’s way.

[1] Alexander Strauch, The New Testament Deacon, (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1992), 40.

[2] These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.

[3] Cornelis Van Dam, The Elder, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2009), 27.

[4] Edmund P. Clowney, Á Brief for Church Governors,” in Mark Brown (ed.), Order in the Offices. Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers, (Duncansville, PA: Classic Presbyterian Government Resources, 1993), 45-46. Emphasis added.

[5] Ibid., 46. Comp Ex. 3:16-18; 4:29; 12:21.

[6] Ibid., 47.

[7] Ibid., 52.

[8] Ibid., 53.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] For an excellent Reformed description of both of these, see Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. IV, (John Bolt [ed.] & John Vriend [trans.]), (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 326-388 & 389-440.

[13] Thomas M. Lindsay, The Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, (NY: Cosimo Classics, 2007), 25.

[14] Ibid. Comp. Rev. 3:7 where the real bearer of the “keys” is the Lord himself.

[15] Ibid., 27.

[16] Ibid., 32.

[17] Ibid. Emphasis added. Comp. Acts 1:23; 6:5; 11:22.

[18] Ibid., 153. Emphasis added.

[19] Ibid., 154.

[20] Ibid., 155. Comp. W.F. Dankbaar, Communiegebruiken in de eeuw der Reformatie, (Groningen: Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap, 1987²).

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., 169.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid., 170. Emphasis added.

[25] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[26] Clowney, “A Brief for Church Governors,” 55.

[27] Lindsay, The Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, 177.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid., 178.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid., 180-181. Emphasis added.

[32] Ibid., 181.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Adolf von Harnack, Sources of the Apostolic Canons, (Edinburgh: John Menzies & Co., 1895), 19-21.

[35] Lindsay, The Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, 182.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (VI)

2010-11-06T12:36:00.001-07:00

I want to continue to talk about the biblical concept of “ordination” in this installment, along with the biblical notion of the laying on or imposition of hands in light of the confusion that some have concerning the non-ordination of male and female deacons, but before I do that, I want to direct our attention back to Acts 6:1-6. “The twelve” (this is the only time Luke uses this designation for the apostles) were to appoint spiritual men (anēr) for a particular “duty” (chreía). “The seven” were to serve tables (diakoneîn trapézais). In other words, they were to administer the daily distribution of food, but perhaps they were given even more to do. Let me explain. New Testament scholar Simon Kistemaker, for example, comments that the word “tables” “points to either sharing food or doling out money designated for buying food.”[1]

An important function, therefore, was placed in the hands of “the seven,” and with that function they were called upon to act as biblical stewards as administrators or mangers of God’s money and food. Alexander Strauch opines that “The task the apostles gave to the Seven was specific. Its nature is partially described as ‘the daily serving’ (Acts 6:1) and ‘to serve tables’ (v. 2). The Greek word for tables, trapeza, is often used figuratively to mean food or meals (Acts 16:34). But the term tables is also used figuratively for finances, a money table, or a bank (Luke 19:23).”[2]

According to Acts 4 (34-37), at the very least it appears that “the seven” were tasked with collecting funds for the needy in the young church, distributing either money or goods to the needy, ensuring that each local congregation justly, impartially, judiciously, decently, and effectively distributed those funds and goods, and coordinating each local congregation’s charitable services to the needy. Common sense dictates that someone has to be in charge of this and that (authoritative) decisions had to be made. Like it or not in our egalitarian world, someone had to be in charge, someone had to make (sometimes tough) decisions, and the buck had to stop somewhere with someone or with a body of responsible people. In this case, the New Testament office-bearers are the designated bodies.

I am convinced that if younger PCA pastors (and others) comprehend that the apostles, the New Testament elders, and the New Testament deacons all possess derived authority, then they will understand why the same questions are asked of both elders and deacons as well as why each congregation is given the charge according to the Book of Church Order 24-6.[3] Both the questions, the address to the congregation, the laying on of hands, the prayer, the extension of the right hand of fellowship, and the pronouncement are of a piece. In addition, they are all reasonable and plausible if you do not have an agenda somehow, by hook or by crook, to do an end run around Scripture and to please the culture by having unordained, commissioned female deacons. Also, as I mentioned in previous installments, what we find in BCO 24 is not of recent vintage. This, or something very similar to it, has been standard fare in both the Presbyterian as well as Reformed churches for centuries, especially since the Reformation. This is not to affirm that our forebears were infallible, but rather it does point us to a rich tradition and heritage that we should not be willing to jettison so easily and without substantial and substantive scriptural proof—both of which are missing from the current debate within the PCA regarding deacons generally and female deacons in particular.

Tasks Differing

“The twelve” entrusted this task of “serving tables” and all that is summarized in that phrase into the hands of “the seven,” while the apostles continued to preach the Word and to be in prayer. If there are TEs who are in a quandary about how they are to spend their time as pastors, preaching and prayer are excellent starting points. “Networking” and making sermons at Starbuck’s is way down the list. No extra charge for that. Let me ask a very simple, practical question. Here’s the scenario: If you and your wife are at dinner and there is something awry with your meal, say, a dead bee in your salad, you call the waiter over. If he is uncooperative, you do what? You ask to speak to the “manager.” Why? Quite simply because as the manager, he has some clout and can either “comp” your meal or rectify the situation. He has the authority as the manager to do what the waiter does not have the authority to do. Thus, in the New Testament, managing the food distribution and possibly money matters as well carried with it a notion of (derived) authority.

Let me give a more contemporary example of how this works in congregations with an active deaconry. Let’s say family Doe has hit a rough patch in their finances. Simultaneously, the shepherding elder has ascertained that family Doe has a history of making bad financial decisions. They have come to the deacons a couple of times before immediately after the worship service with the bad news that unless they get a check from the deacons today, their utilities are going to be cut off. That’s a problem. More than that, it’s a long-standing problem because we all know that Ma Edison does not just turn off the electricity (if you live in Mississippi, call me and I’ll be glad to explain what electricity is) without substantially good reasons. After deliberation, it is decided to cut them the necessary check. Grateful, they drive off in their newly leased SUV. The pastor scratches his head, climbs into his 1950 Ford Fairlane that has 6,000,000 miles on it, that he just paid off the week before, and heads home.

At the next combined meeting, it is decided that family Doe needs a visit from the pastor, the shepherding elder, and a deacon. At the meeting, it is discovered that those members of the congregation, who have visited family Doe, noted that they have cable TV, a nicely furnished and appointed house, and other amenities. They also wear “designer” clothes, dad and mom both have iPhones, wear Birkenstocks, and serve caviar at the home visit. (Well, okay, the caviar is a little bit of a stretch.) It is also discovered that they are deep, deep in credit card debt. They have some major financial problems. At the end of the day, it is decided that one of the deacons who is very good with finances and budgeting will be saddled, tasked with helping family Doe. In the course of time, family Doe falls back into its old, familiar habits. Finally, the deacon says something like this: “Look, here’s the deal: We are willing to help you, but you must submit yourselves to our directives or we’re done. We will not continue to finance your bad decisions. If you are willing to cooperate, we are more than willing to work with you any way we can. We will not, however, continue to pour the Lord’s money into your bad financial decisions.”

This is not only an effective, authoritative tool to employ for church members, who refuse to cooperate and to be good stewards with that which God has entrusted to them, but it is also highly effective against the “scam artists” that plague churches these days. At Grace, if an “outsider” needs assistance, he or she must attend worship first and then talk to the deacons after the service. The point here is simply this: Both the elders as well as the deacons are given “derived” authority from the Head of the Church. Without a doubt, each office has a different function, but it does not necessarily follow that the one office is an authoritative one (elder), and the other is not. It is simply that the type of derived, God-ordained authority is not identical.

I am aiming at two issues with this example. The first matter is the supposition from certain quarters that deacons have no authority whatsoever. It seems plain and clear from Acts 6:1-6 that “the seven” were administers and managers of sorts. Moreover, since each congregation is a covenant community, there is the added element of the family setting here. In a family, there are parents and usually children. God places the parents in authority and not the children. Dad and mom both have derived authority from God to be godly parents and not “buddies” and “chums” to the kids. That will come later perhaps (with any good predestination, about age 40 when the aliens return and re-insert the brains that they sucked out of dad and mom’s head when the children turned 18. That’s why it is such a good idea to keep the aluminum foil in your baseball cap).

The second issue is one of managerial authority that is part of the function of New Testament deacons. Alexander Strauch points out that “If any organization is to maintain integrity and effectiveness, good management of funds and resources is essential.”[4] Management requires (authoritative) decision making. Much of the waste in government spending today is due to and caused by poor management, mismanagement. Again Strauch is spot on when he declares that “Mismanagement and disorganization ruins families, businesses, governments, and churches.”[5] 1 Corinthians 14:40 is a constant reminder that Christ’s bride is to do everything decently and in good order.

What Does It Mean to “Ordain” to an Office?

What does the concept of “ordaining” a person to a biblically described ecclesiastical office mean? What does it mean “to ordain” an office bearer? Our English word for “ordain” comes from the Latin ordinare, which means “to set in order,” “to arrange,” or “to appoint to an office.” It is essential that we understand this: When, in Presbyterian and Reformed circles we ordain a teaching elder, ruling elder, or deacon, it is not merely a human undertaking, but rather an exercise commanded by God. The word has a wide variety of uses in the Bible (cf. Ps. 132:17; Isa. 30:33; Heb. 9:6; 1 Chr. 17:9; Hab. 1:12.)

What has precipitated some PCA pastors to question the notions of ordination to the office of deacon and ordination to the office of deacon? Both the Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart and the Evangelische Kirchen Lexicon cite several texts to validate the biblical concept of “office” (Amt).[6] Basically, fundamentally the notion of “office” carries with it the connotation that someone is in “charge.” Strauch comments that “The Greek verb that means ‘to put in charge,’ kathistēmi, is often used to express appointment to an official position, such as the appointment of a judge or governor (Acts 7:10). It can also express appointment in an unofficial sense. Either way, the verb indicates a sense of authority, as R.J. Knowling in The Expositor’s Greek Testament states: ‘The verb implies at all events an exercise of authority.’”[7]

One of the primary meanings of our notion of “to ordain,” and the one that comes closest to our purposes is, “to set apart for an office or duty.” (cf. Mark 3:14; Jer. 1:5; Dan. 2:24; John 15:16; Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 2:7; Titus 1:5; Heb. 5:1; 8:3.) It is all the more striking and important to note that the Greek word kathistēmi is linked to the laying on or imposition of hands. This symbolic gesture is repeated throughout the histories of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. Furthermore, in both the Old as well as the New Testament, the laying on of hands played a significant role. It signified the conveying of a blessing (Gen. 48:14), the transfer of sin (Lev. 16:21), the transfer of defilement, or to “set people apart, such as in conveying a special commission, responsibility, or authority (Numbers 8:10, 14; 27:15-23; Deuteronomy 34:9).”[8] The last-mentioned use of the imposition of hands is also carried over to the New Testament where in Acts 6:6, 13:3; 1 Timothy 4:14; and 5:22 the clear implication is once again to “set apart or place in office.”[9] In other words, it is an official, authoritative position.

Strauch concludes, then, the following: “In light of this background, it seems reasonable to assume that the imposition of hands in Acts 6 visually expressed the apostles’ blessing, commissioned the Seven to a special task (Numbers 27:22,23), and transferred the authority to do the job.”[10]

It is more than just a little ironic that those PCA churches that are most vociferous about caring for the poor, the needy, the down-and-out, the homeless, and the disenfranchised are the most hesitant to ordain deacons to the task, office, and authority to which the scriptures call them. The office and their respective related functions and tasks are clearly defined and described in what we consider to be the infallible and inerrant Word of God. Why would we want to act in any way that is not in full accordance with and submission to Scripture? Do we know better than God? The Lord has given the Church of Jesus Christ offices and office-bearers. I can understand that the emergent church, for example, does not want any “leaders.” That movement was confused from the “get go” and matters have only devolved since then. People like Brian McLaren and others in the emergent church movement act as if it is a good thing not to have leaders when both testaments clearly, unmistakenly, and unequivocally teach the precise opposite. McLaren is a non-seminary trained loose cannon, who has a very high regard of his own self-importance. He is rapidly becoming the poster boy for modern evangelicalism. But for “Presbos” and conservative Presbos not to get it boggles the mind. What are they teaching in seminary these days?

[1] Simon Kistemaker, Acts, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 221. Emphasis added.

[2] Alexander Strauch, The New Testament Deacon, (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1992), 32-33. Emphasis in original.

[3] Do you, the members of this church, acknowledge and receive this brother as a ruling elder (or deacon), and do you promise to yield him all that honor, encouragement and obedience in the Lord to which his office, according to the Word of God and the Constitution of this Church, entitles him?

[4] Strauch, The New Testament Deacon, 32.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Old Testament: Ex. 28:1; 1:16; Gen. 40:13; 41:13; 1 Chr. 6:52; 23:28; Ps. 109:8; Neh. 13:14; New Testament: Luke 1:8-9; 1 Tim. 3:10; Rom. 11:13; Acts 1:20.

[7] Strauch, The New Testament Deacon, 38. Emphasis added.

[8] Ibid., 39.

[9] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[10] Ibid.

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (V)

2010-10-30T12:40:00.001-07:00

What about Acts 6?

It is a legitimate question to ask whether Acts 6:1-6 refers to Deacons; if it forms a kind of “prototype” for the later Deacons; or if it makes no reference to Deacons at all. It is certainly the case that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between what the find described in Acts 6 and our current office of Deacon. That should not, however, be a deterrent to us because we understand that the early Church was a “work in progress” in much of what Luke describes in Acts. It is not until chapter 8, for example, that we find the Church moving outside of Jerusalem. In addition nowhere in the book of Acts is Paul called an apostle, even though that is the common designation he uses for himself in his letters.

There are some unusual designations in Acts 6 that need to be taken into account. For instance, it is only in verse 2 that Luke refers to the apostles as “the twelve.”[1] Equally unique is his designation of Gentile names constituting the administrative assistants to the apostles. According to Luke, these seven spiritual men became known as “the seven.” (cf. Acts 21:8.) The end of verse 3 states that these men were appointed to a particular “duty” (chpeía).[2] Gordon Fee sees no particular need to view “the seven” as Deacons. He argues, “An appeal to Acts 6:1-6 is of no value, since those men are not called deacons. In fact they are clearly minister of the Word among Greek-speaking Jews, who eventually accrue to title ‘the Seven’ (Acts 21:8), which distinguishes them in a way similar the ‘the Twelve.’”[3]

While Fee is correct that the word Deacon does not appear in the text, it is equally true that the ESV translates tē diakonía as “distribution” and diakoneîn as “to serve.” The point being here that while it is true that the seven spiritual men chosen for the task are not specifically called Deacons, derivatives of that word are used to delineate precisely what their duty is.[4] R.C.H. Lenski states, “These seven were in no sense presbyters of the Jerusalem congregation and they were not elected for that purpose. What is later reported about Stephen and about Philip has nothing to do with their official duties in the congregation. These activities were the result of gifts and of opportunities that extend beyond their specific office. The offices that came into being in the apostolic church were not fluid, but well defined.”[5]

Furthermore, “It is a mistake to conclude that because the Seven are not actually called deacons, there is no connection between the Seven mentioned in Acts and the deacons mentioned in Paul’s epistles.”[6] F.F. Bruce, speaking of the development in the Book of Acts, says, “The record of Acts is true to its ‘dramatic’ date, i.e., to the date of the events and developments it relates.”[7] In a similar vein, Sir William Ramsey reminds us of the following point: “It is rare to find a narrative so simple and so little forced as that of Acts. It is a mere uncoloured recital of the important facts in the briefest possible terms.”[8] For these reasons, it would be unwise and imprudent to deny any relevance for us today regarding what is said in Acts 6:1-6 simply because the word “deacon” is missing. Moreover, most Reformed commentators are in agreement that there is some correspondence between Acts 6 and contemporary circumstances. Calvin, for instance, believes that there is a great deal we can derive from Acts 6 for the New Testament Church.

In addition, when looking at this text we should also compare Scripture with Scripture. When we do so, it becomes evident that “The word diakonos is plainly used three times in the New Testament to refer to the holder of a specific office (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8, 12). It is quite likely that the official title diakonos corresponds to the specialized use of its related noun and verb: diakonia and diakoneō.”[9] C.E.B. Cranfield adds, “We have now seen that there is in the New Testament a specialized technical use of diakonein and diakonia to denote the practical service of those who are specially needy ‘in body, or estate’, and that it is highly probable that the specialized technical use of diakonos also has the same reference.”[10] In light of this, Strauch concludes, “Therefore, since an office in the church called diakonos is concerned with the physical needs of the people (1 Timothy 3:8-13) and since an official body of men was appointed to help meet (diakoneō) the physical needs of the poor (Acts 6:1-6), we cannot but assume there is a connection between the two groups.”[11]

One of the “connection points” between Acts and the practice of laying on of hands found variously throughout the New Testament. It is important to keep in mind that this practice is also found in the Old Testament as well. What were some of the reasons for the imposition of hands in the Old Testament? Generally, the idea conveyed has to do with giving or conferring of a blessing (Gen. 48:14), to identify with a sacrifice offered to God, where the sinner laid his hands on the head of the sacrificial beast (Lev. 1:4; 3:2; 4:4; 16:21),[12] the transfer of defilement (Lev. 24:14), to identify man’s actions with God’s (2 Kgs. 13:16), for the commissioning of a successor (Num. 27:23), and to “set people apart, such as in conveying a special commission, responsibility, or authority (Numbers 8:10, 14; 27:15-23; Deuteronomy 34:9.”[13]

When we examine the New Testament, we find similar and parallel meanings to the Old Testament context. The imposition of hands symbolizes the conveying of a blessing (Matt. 19:15; Mark 10:16), the conveying of the Holy Spirit’s healing power (Mark 6:5; 8:23, 25; Luke 4:40; 13:13; Acts 9:12; 19:11; 28:8), the conveying of the Holy Spirit to believers through the instrumentality of the imposition of the apostles’ hands (Acts. 8:17-19; 19:6), the conveying of a spiritual gift to Timothy through Paul’s hands (2 Tim. 1:6), and finally, to set apart or place in an ecclesiastical office (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22). Thus, in terms of the Deacons, they shared in the derived authority that accrued to them for their office from the apostles by the laying on of hands, just as the apostles, pastors, and other Elders were granted a derived authority to fulfill their respective offices from the Lord Jesus Christ as Head of the Church.

Without attempting to set down hard and fast rules for the concept of the laying on of hands identical to what was done in the early Church, it is plausible to draw conclusions from both the Old as well as the New Testament and to relate to how the Reformation, the Reformers, and the Puritans applied the laying on of hands for Presbyterianism and the Reformed faith. We shall do that in just a moment. Before I do, however, I want to draw your attention to something that is an anomaly. There are those in my church affiliation, the PCA, that against their vow (with notable exception) and against the clear teach of the PCA’s Book of Church Order.

Dr. David Coffin, in a paper presented to Potomac Presbytery (January 2009), clearly demonstrates from the Preface of the BCO[14] and from the BCO itself (4-2; 7-2; 9-1; 9-3) that deacons are to be men and they are to be ordained, which in fidelity to the BCO and the vow taken by the pastor includes reading the pertinent questions in the BCO, their ordination and installation, involving the imposition of hands, and the requisite charge to the congregation. Coffin concludes, “For a minister and/or Session to hold as policy that there shall be no ordained deacon in a congregation is to say that Jesus has not given the diaconate as necessary to the edification of the church and the perfection of His people, and is to take away from his commands concerning the church’s ordinary and perpetual officers.” I would take Coffin’s comments a step farther: Not to ordain deacons according to the command of Scripture is to be disobedient to the Word of God—irrespective of who you are.

Coffin has some more conclusions on this same issue and in the same paper that I want to present to you. After citing BCO 16-1; 16-3; 17-2; and 17-3 he deduces, “For a minister and/or Session to hold as policy that there shall be no ordained deacon in a congregation is to deny that God by the Spirit may call a man from that congregation to the office of deacon, or is to deny a man called and gifted of God by the Spirit his right to be elected and ordained to the office and exercise his gifts in the diaconal labor for which they were given.” In light of BCO 3-1 and 4-1 Coffin construes the teaching there to mean the following: “For a minister and/or Session to hold as policy that there shall be no ordained deacon in a congregation is to deny the congregation the Christ-appointed administrator of part of the church’s power, and to deny the right of the people to exercise their power in choosing deacons.” Finally, according to the instruction received from BCO 24-1 and 24-3 Coffin opines, “For a minister and/or Session to hold as policy that there shall be no ordained deacon in a congregation is to transgress the rights of communicant members to nominate candidates for the diaconate and to vote on their election if found qualified; and to deny the right of the congregation to require the Session to hold an election for the diaconate, as well as the right of the congregation to set the number of deacons to be elected.”

I would merely add to this that whereas the BCO makes provision for the elders to fulfill the functions of the deacons where there are no deacons available (cf. 9-2), this does not mean that congregations—standard, site, or otherwise—are to have TEs and REs interminably filling what should be a deacon’s calling. The scriptures, Reformed Church History, and the BCO make provision for the office and tasks of deacons that are decidedly different from TEs and REs for a reason. No amount of “ingenuity,” “engaging the culture,” or “creativity” can or should alter or attempt to correct that. I know for a fact that certain congregations in the PCA that use the “site church” model not only do this with impunity, but MNA actually sponsors symposia using PCA money to promote such a practice. Unconscionable.

But here is something else to consider: Against all this clear evidence from Scripture and the history of the Presbyterian and Reformed Church, certain PCA pastors are attempting to eviscerate the BCO for what is a “new kid on the block” interpretation. The concept of “commissioning” deacons and/or deaconesses the way it is being conceived and put into practice currently among some PCA pastors is neither found in Scripture nor in the history of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. It is almost as new in Presbyterian and Reformed circles as Dispensationalism. Historically, we might be able to trace this phenomenon back to the Second Great Awakening, but we would be very, very hard pressed to cite instances of this precedent in Presbyterian and Reformed circles.

What is an Ecclesiastical Office?

I find it more than odd that this question concerning to office of Deacon has to be addressed in conservative Presbyterian circles. If this type of question was raised in a liberal congregation, in a broadly evangelical church, or among those in the laughable “emergent conversation,” it would be totally understandable. What is most disconcerting is that the PCA is not only raising the matter, but in some cases is either accepting the commissioning (non-ordination) of male and female deacons or is being silent about it. How does the old adage go? Oh, yeah, I remember: Silence is assent. If someone objects that they are not necessarily assenting then I ask why are you not objecting?

What do we understand about the word “office”? According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, the concept is often used in a periphrastic manner in the Old Testament.[15] For instance, in Exodus the Hebrew word for “priest” is used periphrastically to mean “to serve as a priest.” The actual word “office” is missing, but the concept clearly points to Aaron and Aaron’s sons fulfilling an “office;” in this case, the office of priest.[16] It is a known fact that a variety of Hebrew words are used in this periphrastic manner in different texts. (cf. Gen. 40:13; 41:13; 1 Chr. 6:32; Ps. 109:8; 1 Chr. 23:28; Neh. 13:14.)

This periphrastic usage carries over to the New Testament and can be found in texts such as Luke 1:8-9; 1 Timothy 3:1, 10; and Romans 11:13. A classic New Testament instance is found in Acts 1:20, where Matthias takes Judas’ place by the casting of lots. Luke cites Psalm 109:8 concerning another taking his “office.” In actuality, the word “office” does not appear in the text, but rather simply these words: Tēn episkopēn autoû labétō héteros.[17]

With this as background, the words of Old Testament scholar Cornelis Van Dam are to the point when he writes, “An ecclesiastical office can be defined as a task given by God for a specific continuous and institutional service to his congregation with a view to its edification.”[18] Van Dam also insists that it is the Lord “who calls one to the office.”[19] As a sidebar, it is highly instructive to note that there is no biblical evidence of the Lord calling a woman to the office of elder or deacon.

Those perpetual offices are God-ordained and the Lord “in his good pleasure calls certain persons to serve him in a special purpose.”[20] Both the providence of God and being chosen by the people are active in the election, ordination, and installation into a biblical office. Van Dam comments that “The involvement of the people in the Old Testament dispensation in the receiving of office bearers with authority over them is noteworthy.”[21] Thus, when Paul charged Titus “to appoint (kathistēmi) elders in Crete (Titus 1:5), this duty did not mean that the congregation had no part to play. Such participation would not be unexpected given the involvement of the congregation in the Old Testament in the receiving of office bearers. Indeed the congregation had chosen the seven in Acts 6. The apostles had then laid their hands on them and set them aside for the distribution of food among the needy.”[22]

More, Lord willing, in the next installment. Believe me, there is a lot more to this and we have only begun to scratch the surface of this very important issue.

[1] Simon Kistemaker, Acts, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 226.

[2] The word should be translated “office,” “duty,” or “service.” Walter Bauer, Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), 1750.

[3] Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), 86.

[4] Comp. Kistemaker, Acts, 226.

[5] R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961⁴), 247.

[6] Alexander Strauch, The New Testament Deacon, (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1992), 45.

[7] F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990³), 27.

[8] William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897), 20-21.

[9] Strauch, NTD, 48.

[10] C.E.B. Cranfield, “Diakonia in the New Testament,” in Service in Christ: Essays Presented to Karl Barth on his 80^th Birthday, (J.I. McCord & T.H.L, Parker [eds.]), (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 39.

[11] Strauch, NTD, 49.

[12] Bruce, Acts, 130.

[13] Strauch, NTD, 39.

[14] BCO, Preface, I states that the Lord Jesus “gives all offices necessary for the edification of His Church and the perfecting of His saints.” Moreover, Christ has ordained “His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them nothing be taken away.” (Emphasis added.)

[15] James Orr et al. (eds.), “Office,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. IV, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976³), 2180.

[16] Ibid.

[17] ESV: For it is written in the Book of Psalms, “May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it”; and “Let another take his office.”

[18] Cornelis Van Dam, The Elder, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2009), 4.

[19] Ibid., 5.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., 6. Van Dam cites George Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 288 where Knight reminds us that “The basic mean of cheirontoneō is ‘stretch out the hand, for the purpose of giving one’s vote in the assembly.’”

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (IV)

2010-10-17T17:13:00.001-07:00

The school where Herman Bavinck taught in Kampen, Holland.

Do Deacons Exercise Any Authority?

Just how far back does the history of deacons go? Is what the PCA’s Book of Church Order contains of recent vintage, or do the roots extend farther back? Cees Trimp reminds the Presbyterian and Reformed world that the Reformation was a pivotal time not merely for the re-discovery of the centrality and indispensability of Scripture, but also in the re-discovery of the offices or elder and deacon. With a particular view to deacons, Trimp points to Martin Bucer, who in 1530, reintroduced the biblical doctrine of deacons into Straßbourg.[1] Bucer instituted “five golden rules” for the office of deacon, the second of which had to do with the (authoritative) instruction regarding respect for 1 Timothy five, and especially the relatives of those referred to in that chapter.[2] Rule three explains how the deacons exercised contact with those receiving financial help and instructed them about that money could best be spent.[3]

In addition to Bucer, Trimp cites Johannes à Lasco, who served a Dutch refugee congregation in London from 1550-1553. He put many of Bucer’s ideas into practice not only in London, but in two other congregations he served: Emden and Frankfurt. Of him Trimp writes that à Lasco gave the office a secure place in Reformed ecclesiastical life.”[4] John Calvin built these two Reformers and spoke often of the place of deacons in the Church of Jesus Christ.[5] The French Confession (1559) of a plurality of elders and deacons (Art. 29). What is both striking and remarkable in the history of the Reformation is two things: First, deacons were all men; second, hands were laid on them to ordain them.

What this means for the Presbyterian and Reformed world is that the current phenomenon of “commissioning” female and male deacons instead of ordaining the males, apart from what is clearly noted in BCO 9-7 (It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.), is of very recent vintage. In fact, one could scour Reformed Church history and not find an instance. Besides, one also gets the impression that as far as BCO 9-7 is concerned, the males fade, if they are not totally neglected.

It was interesting that during the Overtures Committee discussions prior to GA this year the notion was put forward to call the females and males of 9-7 “diaconal assistants.” Not surprisingly, there was opposition, but one has to wonder why. Is that title not lofty, worthy enough? Why would anyone balk at such a phrase, unless, of course, they had a different agenda?

My point here is simply this: The form that is used in the current PCA Book of Church Order has its historical roots in Scotland and with John Knox and the Reformed community. For example, the Book of Church Order, handed down from the Synod of Dort (1618/1619), speaks often about deacons and their tasks. Article 83 relates how deacons are tasked with making a number of decisions that can and should be termed “authoritative” in nature. They are to work closely with the Consistory to ensure that their work is accomplished properly.[6] If I may put it this way: both elders and deacons are perpetual ordained offices bearing derived authority from God. John Shepperson, in an article in the Southern Presbyterian Review (July 1854) entitled “Authority of Ecclesiastical Rulers,” stated the following: “None, we presume, can fail to observe that it resolved all the official power of ecclesiastical rulers into ‘the right of judging upon laws already made’ by Christ. If this doctrine be correct, it follows that all ecclesiastical officers not instituted by Christ are unlawful,—that every claim to ecclesiastical office must be tested by an impartial application of the law of Christ to facts existing in the case of the claimant,—and that no man may do officially in the church of Christ, any act which cannot be proved from Scripture to be legitimately connected with his office.”[7] The “it” in Shepperson’s quotation refers to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

In the time of the rise of Neo-Calvinism under Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, Frederick Rutgers, and others, Holland witnessed a blossoming of true diaconal work, all of which were ordained to the office according to the Dort Book of Church Order and all of which were men. None of these deacons were females and each deacon entered his office by answering the requisite questions, with the laying on of hands by the elders. James Orr argues in The International Standard Bible Encyclopædia that the imposition of hands was no mere formality, but rather appears in the Old Testament in various connections. For example, the laying on of hands signified an act of blessing (Gen. 48:14ff) and in the ritual of sacrifice, where the hands of the one offering the sacrifice were laid on the head of the victim (cf. Ex. 29:10, 15, 19; Lev. 1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 24, 29; 8:14; 16:21).[8]

We find other instances of the laying on or imposition of hands when the tribe of Levi was set apart for its particular duties (Num. 8:10) and when Moses appointed Joshua to be his successor (Num. 27:18, 23; Deut. 34:9).[9] Orr constitutes conjoins two important concepts to the imposition of hands in the Old Testament: “The primary idea seems to be that of conveyance or transference (cf. Lev. 16:21), but, conjoined with this, in certain instances, are the ideas of identification and of devotion to God.”[10] All of this provides interesting background for the New Testament concept of the laying on of hands. Again, we are apprised that the imposition of hands was employed in a variety of situations. The Lord Jesus laid hands on the children (Matt. 19:13, 15; Mark 10:16) as well as on the sick (Matt. 9:18; Mark 6:5), and the apostles laid hands on those whom they baptized in the early Church that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17, 19; 19:6).[11]

While this is all true, Orr points out that it was especially the imposition of hands that “was used in the setting apart of person to a particular office or work in the church. This is noticed as taking place in the appointment of the Seven (Acts 6:6), in the sending out of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:3), at the ordination of Timothy (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6), but though not directly mentioned, it seems likely that it accompanied all acts of ordination of presbyters and deacons (cf. 1 Tim. 5:22; Heb. 6:2).”[12] With this background it hardly seems likely that the laying on of hands for the ordination of deacons is a “take it or leave it” proposition. Therefore, those who fancy themselves to be “cutting edge” and eliminate this important, indeed essential, ceremony and symbol do so at the peril of disregarding what Scripture so clearly lays out for us.

This is concept conveyed by the laying on of hands is important for our purposes for as Orr states, “The presbyters could hardly convey what they had not themselves received (1 Tim. 1:14). Here again the fundamental idea is communication. The act of laying on of hands was accompanied by prayer (Acts 6:6; 8:15; 13:3), and the blessing sought was imparted by God himself.”[13] Thus, instead of demonstrating by commissioning female deacons is a manifestation that we are culturally astute and attuned, it is more illustrative of our blatant disregard for the Word of God at this point.

All told, since the time of the Reformation the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches have understood that it was not in the name of humanity, or the public order, or the welfare ideals of a welfare state that deacons have served, but rather they have labored in and for the name of the gospel of Jesus Christ and his kingdom.[14]

In reality, the history of the deacon goes back further than the Reformation, however. In an article by J. Aspinwall Hodge, he traces the seminal thoughts of diaconal work back to the Old Testament. [15] This should come as no surprise. In Hodge’s article (Chapter 6, Of Deacons), he points out that even in the Old Testament “The contributions of money were under the care of the Levites and Priests (Ex. 38:21; Num. 1:50, 53; Ezra 8:24-30, 33). Special provisions were made under the law for the relief of the poor by individual, instead of official contributions and care.”[16] Nevertheless, there was the office of chazzan or Deacon of the synagogue.[17] These chazanim “had charge and oversight of all things in it, kept the sacred books of the law and the prophets and other Holy Scriptures, as also the books of their public liturgies, and all other utensils belonging to the synagogue. The order of the synagogue was, as all Presbyterians hold, the model of that of the Church under the New Testament dispensation.”[18]

Thus, there is an Old Testament background to the New Testament Deacon, even if there is not a one-to-one correspondence.

In our next installment, we’ll begin an investigation of Acts 6 and what we can learn from this New Testament text.

[1] Cees Trimp, Zorgen voor de Gemeente. Het ambtelijk werk van ouderlingen en diakenen toegelicht, (Kampen: Uitgeverij van den Berg, 1983), 185.

[2] Ibid., 186.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Calvin, Inst. 4.4.1ff.

[6] Trimp, Zorgen, 189.

[7] John G. Shepperson, “Authority of Ecclesiastical Rulers,” Southern Presbyterian Review, 8, (July 1854): 113. Emphasis added.

[8] James Orr, “Hands, Imposition,” in James Orr (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopædia, Vol II, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976³), 1335.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[14] Trimp, Zorgen, 179.

[15] This article was excerpted by the PCA Historical Center and appeared in Hodge’s What Is Presbyterian Law? As Defined by the Church Courts, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1882), 60-71. I will follow the pagination of the PCA Historical Center.

[16] Ibid., 60.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (III)

2010-09-23T15:35:00.001-07:00

What about Acts 6?

In virtually every study surrounding deacons and their place within the New Testament Church, one cannot avoid a discussion of Acts 6. Of course, the burning issue is whether Acts 6 actually speaks about the office of deacon, or, as some claim, is it speaking about an entirely different “animal”? This is not an unimportant question, so I want to address before we move on.

I have mentioned that there are some young(ish) as well as older pastors in the PCA that question the validity of the ordination and installation of deacons described in the PCA’s Book of Church Order, chapter 24. The issue is, they assert, that deacons should not be asked the same questions as the ruling elders since they are not to exercise the same authority. Thus, they are different offices with different responsibilities. Naturally, they are different offices with different tasks, aren’t they? Few in Protestantism have ever disputed that. Few in the PCA have ever questioned that and I certainly acknowledge that the office of ruling elder and the office of deacon have different functions. So why are there questions about asking deacons these questions? It seems that some in the PCA are not acquainted with the history of deacons, and with the history of deacons from the time of the Reformation in particular. It is a fact, therefore, that what we find in BCO 24 is not of recent vintage, but rather dates back to the time of the Reformation and can be traced at the very least to Martin Bucer in 1530.

Attached to this notion is yet another “dilemma” which is whether the deacons comprise an actual “office.” It is my settled conviction that this is a mere “red herring” used by those who are intent on “commissioning” males and females as deacons. In essence, according to this practice, no deacons, male or female, is ordained. The PCA is supposed to accept this practice without any questions, especially if it fits or suits the needs of a cosmopolitan city or some other trendy place. “Fly over” America PCA churches might still ordain males, but those in more important cultural area are free to make use of their “professional” women, who are among the movers and shakers in secular society.

After all, the reasoning goes, in keeping with our politically correct culture, commissioning is merely an acceptable “alternative” to “doing church.” Those with commissioned male and female deacons are living an alternative ecclesial lifestyle. I am going to suggest that rather than being a mere acceptable “alternative,” this practice is biblically aberrant; it cannot be supported from Scripture. The reason is because we are operating on manmade principles on not on what the scriptures demand. Back in the late 1800s, W.E. Boggs asked, “If the deacon’s office be, as it is generally admitted to be, a divinely instituted office, can the churches be guiltless in the neglect of it?”[1] I would simply change Boggs’ question to read: or to commission males and females when Scripture gives us no warrant to do so? James Henley Thornwell said, “The great error of the Church in all ages, the fruitful source of her apostasy and crime, has been a presumptuous reliance upon her own understanding. Her own inventions have seduced her from her loyalty to God, and filled her sanctuary with idols and the hearts of her children with vain imaginations. The Bible cuts at the very root of this evil by affording us a perfect and infallible rule of faith, and practice.”[2]

We will examine the notion of precisely what an ecclesiastical office is and what we are to understand by the words “ordain” and “ordination.” But before we do that, I want to walk us through the most salient aspects of Acts 6:1-6. I realize as I move through this text that there are those who do not believe that this text describes the New Testament concept of deacon. I agree, but only in part. There is rather overwhelming historical evidence that many Church Fathers considered this to be a text that spoke to the reality of the office of death in some sense. During the Reformation, one would be hard pressed to find a Reformer who denied that Acts 6 did not have something to say about the office of deacon. Moreover, there are some unique references in these verses that hearken back to Old Testament times, demonstrating a connection with the saints in the older covenant. As a result of these historical facts dating back to the time of the Reformation, I’m going to argue that these verses teach us quite a bit about New Testament deacons. Moreover, Southern Presbyterians such as Dabney, Girardeau, Peck, and Thornwell also had a great deal to say about deacons and Acts 6. Therefore, there are numerous principles that we can draw from this text that will help us immensely.

Some Salient Points

In addition to the statements by the theologians mentioned above, there are a number of remarkable aspects of this text that cannot be ignored in the current PCA discussion surrounding the place of the deacon in the New Testament Church. First, the “full number” of Christ’s disciples was called together (προσκαλέω; proskaléō) by the twelve. The reason given by the apostles in their presentation to the disciples was: “It is not right that we should give up preaching the Word of God to serve tables.” (v. 2.) R.C.H. Lenski makes the observation that it was “the twelve” who call the meeting and not Peter alone, just in case someone was thinking about going Roman Catholic on us![3]

Further up in verse 4, the apostles give us a blueprint of their office: “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry (τῇ διακονίᾳ; tē diakonía ) of the word.” By deduction, we can derive a broad blueprint for today’s teaching elder. If some wonder how much time should be spent in networking, drinking Starbucks, shooting pool, or drinking micro-brews, the answer is quite clear. For those who have neither consulted nor read William Perkins’ The Art of Prophesying, I highly recommend it.

Thus, second, the focus and concern of the apostles was preaching the Word of God. Previously, they had probably been engaged in the serving of tables, but as the young Church grew and expanded, the apostles found themselves in a “time crunch.” They could no longer preach and take care of the daily administration of food. It is instructive that the phrase “to serve tables” (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις; diakoneîn trapédzais.) also involves a derivative for the word “deacon.” Thus, even though it is correctly argued that the word “deacon” does not appear in Acts 6:1-6, there is certainly reference to deacon-like ministry. Simon Kistemaker is convinced that Luke’s use of the word “tables” here “points to either sharing food or doling out money designated for buying food.”[4]

If he is correct, then this at the very least raises the question of whether any authority was involved, for it certainly seems that some degree of authority was associated with what “the seven” were supposed to do. We’ll leave the particulars of that question until later, but it is important to ask the question as this juncture. I do want to raise a couple of preliminary issues that we’ll return to in another installment. First, Thomas Lindsay argues that in both offices—ruling elder and deacon—“A real authority is bestowed, and real powers are given.”[5] For both the ruling elder and the deacon, their authority is derived. All Presbyterian and Reformed pastors/theologians have argued to this end.

Second, when the Presbyterian and Reformed describe the office of deacon as manager, does that not imply some degree of authority? If you and I are dissatisfied with our service, we may ask to speak with the manager, correct? Why? Does the manager of the store have no authority? No, we ask to speak with him precisely because he has more authority than the high school drop-out who has been working there for about five minutes before we arrived.

Third, we’ll need to inquire why deacons were used during the time of the Reformation to help serve the Lord's Supper in some Reformed churches. There is a very good reason why and few have ever paused to reflect upon the relationship between the deacons, the Lord’s table, and mercy.

To our third point concerning Acts 6, the congregation was to “pick out” (ἐπισκέπτομαι; episképtomai) seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom. What is noteworthy here is that the congregation was fully involved. The apostles were in charge and had a plan about the direction in which the young Church should be heading, but the congregation was fully involved in the selection process. Lenski points us to the reality that “The selection of the men for this task is left to the congregation.”[6] We’re going to emphasize the clear and obvious fact that all seven of the seven were men and not women.

Moreover, these men were chosen by the congregation because they possessed certain spiritual gifts. Each Christian possesses a spiritual gift, but not all are called to be leaders. Their call is to exercise their gifts for the whole. In Lord’s Day 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 55 reads as follows: “Q. What do you understand by “the communion of the saints”? A. First, that believers one and all, as members of this community, share in Christ and in all his treasures and gifts. Second, that each member should consider it his duty to use his gifts readily and cheerfully for the service and enrichment of the other members.”

Where some in the PCA are endorsing pastors acting as “mercy chairmen,” we must object that this is certainly not according to the biblical mandate. In other words, this function is not to be fulfilled by a pastor, who has been tasked by the Lord to perform different ecclesiastical work. Presbyterians down through the ages have argued vociferously that the so-called “higher” offices (pastor, ruling elder) do not include other offices (deacon). Names such as Girardeau, Dabney, Thornwell, Peck, and others come to mind. John Girardeau worked feverishly to eradicate a similar notion that was growing up in some Southern Presbyterian churches of his day. In his assessment, this current notion of teaching elders serving as deacons, when it was not necessary and qualified men were available was to blame for the near extinction of the office of deacon.[7]

It is a purely manmade notion and should be rejected. In addition, it is equally wrong to suppose that everyone in the congregation should serve in this capacity. These men were given a specific, God-ordained office to fulfill. Were there others in the congregation in Jerusalem with “gifts.” Yes, of course; no doubt. Nevertheless a selection process was undertaken to cull out the ones with specified gifts; those with a particular character and ability to put those gifts into practice. We will come back to this later.

[1] W.E. Boggs, “The Deacon’s Office in the Church of the New Testament,” Southern Presbyterian Review, 26:3 (July 1875): 425.

[2] James H. Thornwell, “Argument Against Church-Boards,” in The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, (B.M. Palmer [ed.]), Vol. 4, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1986), 163.

[3] R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of The Acts of the Apostles, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961⁴), 242.

[4] Simon Kistemaker, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 221.

[5] Thomas Lindsay, The Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, (NY: Cosimo Inc., 2007), 25. Note: This work was originally published in 1902.

[6] Lenski, Acts, 243.

[7] Comp. John L. Girardeau, “The Importance of the Office of Deacon,” Southern Presbyterian Review, 32:1 (Jan. 1881): 6.

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons (II)

2010-09-17T08:52:00.001-07:00

When Presbyterians Don’t Understand Being Presbyterian

One might think that after being in existence for over three decades the PCA might have some inkling about who we are, what we’re about, and what it means to be Presbyterian and Reformed. When I read the “Strategic Plan” presented to this year’s General Assembly in Nashville, I discovered that I was mistaken. The SP asserted that the PCA had not yet quite figured out what it meant to be Reformed. That was shocking news. While at GA, I was told that there are some in the PCA who do not believe that deacons possess any authority and so the questions put to them and the charge addressed to the congregation at their ordination are bogus. (cf. Book of Church Order, Chapter 24, Election, Ordination and Installation of Ruling Elders and Deacons.) That, also, was shocking news.

I contend that not knowing why deacons are asked the same questions as ruling elders is an extension of not fully knowing what it means to be Reformed, because since the time of the Reformation this has been the practice. This truth will become increasingly evident as we go forward. I will not be citing esoteric, enigmatic sources, but rather those that are available to anyone willing to take the time to investigate this matter. I recommend these articles to professors, pastors, seminary students, college students, and the Presbyterian man and woman in the pew, not because I’m such a gifted writer. I’m not. I commend them because I believe that they will clarify some issues that are threatening the PCA currently.

In this sense, I want to counter and challenge some of the unbiblical thinking in the PCA surrounding the nature and notion of office in general, and concerning the office of deacon in particular. Why is that? Well, it is simply because the deacons have come under fire recently in the PCA and the denomination is struggling with a concept that, quite frankly, I did not think the PCA would have to address. You see, I supposed that, while not being infallible or 100% in its historical understanding of all things ecclesiastical, the PCA had at least thought through concepts such as “derived authority” and the like. Fortunately, many have; unfortunately, a growing number have not.

Therefore, what I will be endeavoring in the next while is an explanation of how the office of deacon has been thought of and implemented throughout Church history. I’m going to start simply and deal with some concepts generally and from there, Lord willing, we’ll move on to more specifics. At the end of the day, it’s my prayer that these articles will prove helpful. I should tell you at the outset that my intention ultimately is to work these articles into a book that I hope will be read within and outside the PCA.

Let’s Start in the South

John Lafayette Girardeau (1825-1898) was a remarkable man and southern gentleman. He was a theologian, pastor, professor, churchman, and philosopher. His life is aptly sketched by George Blackburn (ed.).[1] His work among the slaves in Charleston, SC is legendary. The volume edited by George Blackburn cites some notes that Girardeau kept concerning his life—a kind of brief autobiography. In a section of that material describing his youth, Girardeau cited these poetic words: “When in the slippery paths of youth, With heedless steps I ran, Thine arm unseen conveyed me safe, And led me up to man.”[2]

I read Girardeau with great delight and highly recommend him. I tell you this because quite recently, I read a number of articles he wrote concerning the office of deacon and the importance of that office. His words were clear, concise, precise, and to the point, as he wrote about “the timeliness and desirableness of considering the whole subject of the diaconate.”[3]

His words are timely and come at a time when the PCA finds itself in the midst of controversy and rather intense discussion (intense fellowship) regarding a wide number of subjects and issues that have not been handled in a timely fashion and now, for whatever providential reason, all of these issues are converging like a torrent or tsunami on a somewhat unsuspecting and apparently unprepared denomination. If the PCA admits that it has not grasped what it meant to be Reformed from the outset, that is problematic.

Someone should have seen these issues coming. In point of fact, some did. Their cries were ignored for a variety of reasons, and now those same people that were in the leadership positions and should have not only seen these things coming, but also should have been at the forefront and halting them in their tracks or dealing with them in a reasonable and timely fashion, seem flummoxed that so many in the PCA are “angry.” The origin of the consternation, concern, and general disgruntled attitude can be traced back to being Presbyterian and Reformed. When certain PCA pastors and congregations are able to disregard the clear teaching of Reformed history and the BCO with impunity; that is bound to cause unrest.

What the PCA is learning very late in the game is that, in a number of cases, we have not been served well by our committees at headquarters. When the buck stops with you and it is within your “pay grade,” it is essential that you have a plan and the resources to deal with what’s on your desk. Pretending it’s not there, that it will get better, or improve on its own, is a clear indication that someone in not acquainted with Murphy’s Laws.

By way of request, I will limit myself to dealing with some of the burning questions surrounding the office of deacon and leave the other questions to be settled in various Presbyteries and at General Assembly. I was told explicitly at the Nashville General Assembly that some in the PCA are questioning the use of the identical questions for the ordination of deacons that are used for the ordination of elders. In addition, the identical charge to the congregation is given irrespective of whether the ordination pertains to elders or deacons. Is it correct to do this?

Moreover, there are rumblings afoot that the office of deacon (if, in fact, it truly is an office) possesses no authority whatsoever. Some enterprising and creative pastors and sessions have, therefore, taken it upon themselves not to ordain deacons, male or female, but merely to “commission” them. Thus, they are convinced that they have convinced us that they have not violated their ordination vows, because they are not ordaining women to the office of deacon. The reality is that they are not ordaining anyone to the office of deacon. To their mind, by commissioning them they are within the bounds of accepted and acceptable Presbyterian polity. But is this truly the case? More important: does the refusal to ordain someone to an office that Scripture declares should be attended by the laying on of hands resolve the dilemma or further complicate it?

Is this a cultural problem or an attempt for the Church to be acceptable to the culture? Is the phenomenon of commissioning women as deacons something imposed on PCA congregations by culture or something that PCA congregations want to utilize in order to placate or ameliorate culture? In his latest book, James Davison Hunter contends “that the dominant ways of thinking about culture and cultural change are flawed, for they are based on both specious social science and problematic theology.”[4] My contention is that what is occurring in the PCA surrounding the commissioned male and female deacons is based on both. When congregations began to tell their respective Presbyteries that their intention was to commission males and females as deacons and not ordain them, those Presbyteries and presbyters should have stepped up to the plate with as much vigor and verve as they did with the Federal Vision issue in the PCA. In addition, those Presbyteries and presbyters should have consulted reliable history books that dealt with the Reformation, because they would have found that there was always ordination, the laying on of hands, and only male subjects in the ordination of deacons.

Barring that, headquarters in Atlanta (Okay. I know. It’s Lawrenceville) should have addressed this in the early stages before we moved down the ecclesiastical turnpike. My dear and lovely wife provided me with an appropriate illustration of this very thing. She said, “You know, it’s like cars running through stop sign after stop sign and now they’re out on the freeway (obviously not a California freeway, because there you’re always on the brakes!) and voices are shouting, ‘Stop!’ but it’s almost too late. Few cars are going to stop on an interstate highway for no apparent reason.” This means that the cavalier manner in which we have tolerated the “commissioned but not ordained male and female deacons” not only did no one any real favors, but more than that it was unbiblical, which is far more serious. Why hasn’t Atlanta/Lawrenceville said something before? Why haven’t our professors, whom we pay to teach our theological students, addressed the unbiblical nature of what is occurring in the PCA? Thankfully, some have; sadly, many have not. Why does this discussion have to come from a little old country parson in Yorba Linda, CA instead of someone else?

Thankfully, I do not have to tackle this question alone. I have a number of prominent and eminent theologians who will help me. They’re all dead white guys who smoked. Some even ate French Fries. Names like Bucer, Calvin, Bavinck, Kuyper, Girardeau, and others come to mind. They all wrote on this issue. Their writings are available and accessible. One can only wonder why someone hasn’t used them in this discussion before. They were neglected in the past; I do not intend for them to be neglected any longer. At the end of the day, things may not change at all, leaving some of us with very difficult decisions.

But I am growing very weary of some pastors and their congregations receiving preferential treatment and neglecting their financial obligations to the PCA, while the “leaders” curry favor with those congregations and neglect and/or denigrate those congregations that faithfully send in their askings. Here’s the message: send us your money, but don’t expect us to pay any attention to you, what you think, what you want, or anything else. Just send us the money. This is an elitist attitude that I expect from certain quarters of secular politics, but not from a denomination where I have labored and sweated for a decade and a half.

Prior to the article cited above by Girardeau, another article appeared in The Southern Presbyterian Review, authored by Dabney and Girardeau, et al. (Remember Al?) bearing the simple title, “The Diaconate.”[5] The authors present a number of cogent and much-needed arguments for and about the diaconate, but few as profound and yet simple as this one: “No one has a right to perform ecclesiastical functions unless he be ordained to their discharge.”[6] I italicized the word “ordained,” precisely because that is what is being neglected and refused by those who support unordained, commissioned male and female deacons. If Dabney, Girardeau, and the other white, dead, smoking, French Fry eating guys are correct every commissioned deacon—male or female—is illegitimate, since they have not been ordained to the office.

In Girardeau’s January 1881 article he wrote, “It has not infrequently been said, that the age in which we live is peculiarly called upon, in the providence of God, to take up Church-questions and subject them to a careful examination.”[7] In the case of the PCA, it seems that their rejoinder to Girardeau’s statement is, “Well, it depends.” Yes, with some hesitation and with the suggestion of erecting a study committee to study what teaching elders had already signed. One had to wonder if all the teaching elders in the PCA had actually read the Westminster Standards or understood them. If they didn’t understand them, one can once again only wonder why they signed them. Probably too many French Fries instead of apples and carrots. (They had never heard Michele Obama’s appeal for apples and carrots lifted [read: plagiarized] from Cass Sunstein’s book Nudge.)

Girardeau goes on to remind us of the following: “No doubt, it is the duty of every age to study the whole counsel of God as revealed in his inspired word. But there are peculiar circumstances connected with the Church, at particular times, which compel her attention to certain articles of faith and principles of order.”[8] How appropriate and spot on. The PCA is living in such a time, but unlike Dabney, Girardeau, and others, too many of our leaders are loathe to address the issue.

“But,” someone might object, “don’t we have more important issues to deal with and bigger ecclesiastical fish to fry—to go with the French Fries?” Girardeau concedes the point that some matters are of greater and weightier import than others. “It is true that, relatively to the salvation of the soul, doctrine is of infinitely greater importance than ecclesiastical polity, order and administration.”[9] That’s news, isn't it? Clearly Girardeau belongs to the past and his emphasis on doctrine would not be received well in the PCA in some quarters today. We’re too busy going “global” and saving culture. What I find especially applicable from Girardeau’s article, however, is the assertion that “The functions of some church-officers may be diverted from their appropriate ends, and those of others, as distinctive and separate, may be wholly obliterated.”[10] This begs the question of whether the current practice among some in the PCA is a mere diverting of the biblical office of deacon from its appropriate ends, or whether it is, by virtue that none of those in the office are elected and properly ordained, an obliteration of the office under the guise of good.

In our next issue, we will sail across the Atlantic and visited the small country of Holland where we’ll listen to Dr. Cees Trimp’s description of the reinstatement and proper understanding of the diaconate during the time of the Reformation and then we’ll head back to the South and hear what Rev. J. Aspinwall Hodge had to say about deacons way back in 1882. It’s a little known fact, but he was a big fan of French Fries.

[1] George A. Blackburn, (ed.), The Life Work of John L. Girardeau, D.D., LL.D., (Columbia, SC: The State Company, 1916.)

[2] Ibid., 13.

[3] John L. Girardeau, “The Importance of the Office of Deacon,” The Southern Presbyterian Review, 32, No. 1 (January 1881): 1.

[4] James Davison Hunter, To Change the World. The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, (NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 5.

[5] Robert Dabney, John Girardeau, et al., “The Diaconate,” The Southern Presbyterian Review, 30, No. 1, (January 1879).

[6] Ibid., 18. Emphasis added.

[7] John L. Girardeau, “The Importance of the Office of Deacon,” The Southern Presbyterian Review, 32, No. 1 (January 1881): 1.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 3.

[10] Ibid., 4.

The PCA’s New Dilemma about Deacons

2010-09-09T16:13:00.000-07:00

Do Deacons Exercise Any Authority?

It might be difficult for some to believe, but in certain quarters of the Presbyterian Church in America, questions are arising about the legitimacy of the “office” of deacon, specifically in this regard: whether deacons possess authority. Thus the PCA is currently facing two “crises” with a view to deacons. The first deals with the question of whether a deacon possesses any authority in his office; the second is the question of whether the Book of Church Order makes room for unordained female and male deacons. I contend that it does not, but that must become evident as we go forward. As we do so, I intend to deal with the biblical notion of “office” for both elders as well as deacons, believing that a healthy, spiritual view of the one will aid us in understanding the other. It will also, I believe, enable us better to understand the concept of “derived” authority for both offices. Why has this controversy arisen? There are a number of reasons, but to get the discussion rolling, I’ll just cite what some say lies at the heart of the issue.

The current PCA Book of Church order delineates (Chapter 24) how Ruling Elders and Deacons are to be elected, ordained, and installed. Both Ruling Elders and Deacons are asked the identical six questions and the identical charge is given to the members of the local congregation irrespective of whether Ruling Elders or Deacons are presented to the congregation. The question has arisen: Since Ruling Elders and Deacons fulfill very different functions, is it correct for the local pastor to declare “I know pronounce and declare that ____________ have been regularly elected, ordained and installed a ruling elder (or deacon) in this church, agreeable to the Word of God, and according to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America; and that as such he is entitled to all encouragement, honor and obedience in the Lord: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” (BCO 24-6. Emphasis added.)

I italicized the word “obedience,” for therein lies the crux of the current discussion and debate. If, it is argued, the deacons possess no authority as the elders do, precisely what obedience is owed to them? It is important to note before we move forward that this issue has come to the forefront relatively recently in the PCA and is closely connected to the discussion among some regarding unordained female deacons or deaconesses. It is both correct and helpful to admit up front, at the outset that the authority issue concerning the deacons has not been a “burning issue” in the PCA until recently. That being the case, it is equally important to ask why and how the question began. Who or what precipitated the question and was the question fully investigated before people started jumping on the proverbial bandwagon and making it a point at Presbytery? Is it connected to the matter of unordained, commissioned female deacons, or is it part of another issue? Whatever the case may be, it seems most plausible, reasonable, feasible, and Presbyterian to attempt to effect change in the BCO through proper means. That is to say, if it is clearly evident to all or a large majority that Presbyterian polity has historically misinterpreted Scripture and has given deacons perceived authority that they do not deserve or that is not scripturally warranted, then by all means follow the proper channels and get the BCO amended. I am all for that.

My concern, however, is that some Presbyters in the PCA are elitists. That’s not a favorable word. What do I mean by using it? I mean this: A simple definition means that we all play by the same rules, so that if I give my word at my ordination to “approve of the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in American, in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity.” (BCO 21-5.3.) “But wait,” someone might object, “it says general principles and I hold to those general principles, just not to every jot and iota. After all, the BCO is a fallible document.” Of course, that’s true, isn't it? Yes, it is. That is why Presbyteries allow exceptions. The exceptions are presented and each respective Presbytery must decided whether the exception taken strikes at the vitals of the Christian faith or not. If they decide that it does, then the ordinand is in a bit of a dilemma. Either he must accede or look elsewhere. To my mind, what he may not do ethically is to give the impression that he is acceding and once in his congregation “do this own thing.” Being Presbyterian allows a great deal of latitude but lying and disingenuousness are not included in the packet.

I fear, however, that this is precisely the case in a number of congregations in the PCA. Pastors are “mooning” certain portions of the BCO with impunity. In other words, in some congregations in the PCA we have a serious ethical problem among some teaching elders, who might condemn adultery, but have little or no problem tolerating their own disingenuousness when it comes to the vow they made regarding the BCO. It matters little that the BCO is a fallible document, which we all agree on. What matters most is the weight and value of giving your word. Is this a generational thing? I don’t know. Maybe somewhat, but truth should not be generational.

A group of us were talking at our Men’s Bible Study recently and a couple of guys mentioned how in their time, important business deals were sealed by a handshake and a word. It used to be that even among secularists your word and your handshake were adequate, sufficient. Have we come to the point today where teaching elders can give their word and not mean it? I’m just askin’, but it’s a very serious question. If we have come that far, we are in a world of hurt. I’m also not certain what would be adequate for the newer generation of pastors (thankfully not all by a long shot) to do some serious soul-searching about what it means to give your word and then to follow through on it. If the Constitution of the PCA states a particular thing, then all are required to abide by that instruction, especially when it comes to the ordination of elders and deacons.

From the outset the PCA settled the matter of who and of what gender deacons were to be. It is categorically incorrect that in the Receiving and Joining of the RPCES exceptions were made concerning deaconesses. I have heard that position defended in my own Presbytery and it is wrong, fallacious. In addition, there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that the respective offices of elder and deacon require different work. That is really not in discussion in this matter. What is in discussion, however, is the question of whether Scripture and the history of the Christian Church have ever taught authority for deacons or if deacons have ever been utilized in positions that carried authority with them.

I fear that a phenomenon has occurred where someone with some “clout” in the PCA made a statement to this effect: “The deacons do not have an ecclesiastical office that gives them any authority. Therefore, it is perfectly correct to have unordained commissioned female deacons, since they are not violating the biblical mandate that prohibits women from exercising authority over men.” That is to say, those who want to commission female deacons wanted a “loophole” and found one in an untried statement. It sounded good, plausible, and somewhat feasible and so it was a “go.” It is rather like the untried but rather widely accepted PCA statement, “A woman can do anything an unordained man can do.” Lord willing, we shall have the opportunity to address that notion as well.

The clear-cut explanation of what a deacon does and who he is can be found both in Scripture and the BCO. For example, in BCO 9-1 we read, “The office of deacon is set forth in the Scriptures as ordinary, and perpetual in the Church. The office is one of sympathy and service, after the example of the Lord Jesus; it expresses also the communion of saints, especially in their helping one another in time of need.” 9-3 further qualifies who deacons are in this fashion: “To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.” (Emphasis added.)

Even to the untrained hermeneutician, this explanation is straightforward and easy to understand. It might not constitute what some today would consider to be a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge, but in the final analysis it describes, in no uncertain terms, what a deacon does and what kind of man he should be. This actually is very helpful and is designed to save churchmen a lot of time. You look it up; there it is; now go do it. A kind of “fly in the ointment” or “loophole” in the current conversation concerning having or getting females on board is ostensibly located in 9-7, which states, “It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.”

A kind of “quantum leap” is made hermeneutically in order to bend, shape, or otherwise treat this part of the BCO as a “wax nose.” Here is what I mean: Those who want female deacons attempt to use this as a way to create what does not exist: unordained, but commissioned, female deacons. To be consistent, the congregations that are in violation of the BCO attempt to further get around their dilemma by not ordaining either males or females, but merely “commissioning” them. Rather than doing an “end run” around the BCO those who favor and have actually practiced this approach have done terrible despite to the office of deacon and have shown disregard to the principles and practices our Lord laid down in the Bible. Attempting to make some kind of compensation to allow women to serve where Scripture does not allow them to serve and by adapting a secular mindset vis-à-vis women and their ability to “do anything an unordained man can do,” they have shown disregard for what they swore to uphold at their ordination.

Cees Trimp, emeritus professor of pastoral theology at a seminary in Kampen, the Netherlands, comments that Herman Bavinck made the rather remarkable comment that Reformed theology had never discussed the place of the diaconate in its exposition of the “The Church’s Spiritual Power.”[1] Bavinck contends that Christ gave to deacons a power that is of great significance and Bavinck termed that power the ministerium misericordiae. He considered the diaconate the third independent component of ecclesiastical power. Trimp opines that Bavinck’s statement, situated as it is in his locus de ecclesia, deserves our full attention.[2] What Bavinck desires for the Church to reflect upon is the concept of how, if at all, the diaconate functions within the context of the “keys of the kingdom.” (cf. Matt. 16:19.)

In Paragraph 516 of the Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck uses a heading entitled “The Power of Mercy.” That’s probably an unusual juxtaposition of words, because mercy typically connotes something very different to us. To Bavinck’s mind, the mercy exercised by deacons is connected with the threefold office (munus triplex) of our Lord Jesus Christ. He writes, “…Christ is also a priest who from heaven still consistently exercises this office in his church now. Just as he teaches his own as prophet and governs them as king, so as priest he demonstrates to them the riches of his mercy. When he was on earth, he went through all the towns and villages, not only teaching in their synagogues and preaching the good news of the kingdom, but also healing every disease and sickness among the people (Matt. 9:35).”[3] In a striking manner, Bavinck connects mercy to Christology.

Furthermore, Bavinck contends that Christ’s acts of mercy were “no secondary and incidental activity but a primary element in the work the Father had changed him to perform (8:17; John 5:36; 9:3-4; and so forth). Manifest in this activity were the fullness of his power and the riches of his mercy.”[4] His choice of words is intentional and telling. He negates the suggestion that for Christ mercy was a “secondary” or “incidental” activity and posits that was a “primary element” in his saving work. This led Bavinck to propose a number of improvements to the Church’s understanding of the office and work of a deacon.

First, in keeping with what we just cited he suggested “That the diaconal office be honored more than it has been up until now as an independent organ of the priestly mercy of Christ.”[5]

Next, I point us to Bavinck’s third proposal “That deacons be instructed to persuade all the members of the church, particularly the wealthier ones, in the name of Christ, to practice mercy and to warn and guard them against the sin of covetousness, which is a root of all evil.”[6] Persuasion, warning, and guarding are words that connote some kind of authority to do so. Incidentally, Bavinck adhered to the Church Order from the Synod of Dort (1618/1619) that prescribed that office bearers as only men. (broeders.)

I want to make two more points from Bavinck’s proposals before we close this installment. First, based on Dort’s church order, he recommends “That the diaconate stimulate, regulate, and guide—not kill—the practice of private benevolence.”[7] Regulating and guiding the practice of giving implies some degree of authority. Otherwise, what the deacons do is a mere suggestion. Finally, Bavinck writes that “along with ministers and elders, deacons be delegated to the major assemblies of the churches and be given a vote in all matters pertaining to the ministry of mercy.”[8] Bavinck was an active churchman and a keen observer of what was needed in the Church. Along with Abraham Kuyper he effectuated, by God’s grace, a union between his own church affiliation, the Secessionists, and Kuyper’s Doleantie. His RD breathes of the practical.

In our next installment, I plan to take a look at the concept of office and to take special note that in Scripture, it is used periphrastically of all “offices.”

[1] Cees Trimp, Ministerium. Een Introductie in de Reformatorische Leer van het Ambt, (Groningen: Uitgeverij De Vuurbaak, 1982), 203. See Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4, (John Bolt, [ed.] & John Vriend [trans.]), (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 389-440.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Bavinck, RD, 4:427.

[4] Ibid., 427-428.

[5] Ibid., 428.

[6] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 429.

The Aftermath of the PCA’s 38th General Assembly (VI)

2010-08-13T07:41:00.000-07:00

Theme # 2: Increased Involvement

This second Theme carries with it a Goal, a General Means, and 6 Specific Means. Therefore we might expect the type of precision we’ve been expecting from such a far-reaching document. We’ll have to wait and see.

Before with launch into a foray into what our leaders have presented to us, I’d like to make three anecdotal comments. Yesterday, the church received a package from MNA. It was quite informative, but what struck me was the color printing and size of the mailing. We, no doubt, received fewer copies of the mailing because of the size of our congregation, but the enclosed material had to be quite expensive to print. Now no one wants this material to look like it was put together by a kindergarten class, but simultaneously with PCA headquarters talking about running deficits, one might think that they’d consider a less expensive mailing.

This comes under the category of, “Yes, honey, we’d love to buy that Lear Jet, but we just cannot afford it right now. Just wait until the royalties from the Herman Bavinck biography start rolling in and I’ll write the check for $15 million.” There are those of us who would like to see evidence that since our congregations are feeling the impact of the economic downturn that our headquarters committees “feel our pain” and are also willing to tighten their spending belts too, rather than acting like a bureaucracy from a socialistic country that continues to spend even when there is no money, or when you’re operating at a deficit. That in the first place.

My second anecdotal comment is serious, but important, for a number of reasons. This comment has to do with an itemized list of PCA church-by-church giving to, among other things, the AC. Someone I know well collected the giving data for 2009 of all the PCA churches in all the Presbyteries. I was disheartened that the Administrative Committee had not given us these numbers themselves, because they are telling, to put it very mildly. In the columns designated “AC Committee Contributions” and “Total Contributions” there were excessive numbers of congregations with “$0.00” in both columns—many of these congregations vociferously “missional.” Someone needs to give the PCA a hard and fast definition of precisely what “missional” means, especially in light of these numbers.

The $0.00 is totally understandable for young, new church plants or congregations that are quite small, but substantially less acceptable for longer-standing congregations. Is it that those congregations just don’t know what they’re supposed to give, don’t open their mail from headquarters, or that they’re more concerned with being “missional” than they are contributing what the rest of the congregations contribute as those churches in good standing in the PCA?

My observation and conclusion in reading the 2009 “stats” was that many of the PCA that are the most vociferous about being missional give zero to the AC. Let me elaborate for a moment, because in some sense I have sympathy for some who refuse to contribute to certain PCA committees. In addition, I cannot from here decide why they are not giving to the support of the PCA committees. I have written this before, but it warrants repeating: My own congregation has withheld money to certain PCA committees precisely because of the manner in which they operate and refuse to communicate with certain local congregations. It was an unanimous Session decision to do so. Since we’re all big boys and girls (commissioned girls, mind you; not ordained!), why don’t we get this out on the table? I am convinced that getting this out for an open, honest, and frank discussion is a necessary step if we plan to move forward in working out our current dilemma.

A number of years ago, the Session of Grace became disgruntled with the manner in which MNA “parachuted” church planters into our neighborhoods. We were not informed they were coming or who they were. We were only informed that they had attended the Assessment Center and had the PCA Good Housekeeping seal of approval—which we learned was not always a good thing. In short, their arrival came as a surprise and sometimes they were not a good “fit,” tending to operate autonomously, were paid ridiculously high salaries for recent seminary graduates (close to six figures), and tended not to be very Presbyterian at all, and that’s just for starters. We tried to talk to MNA about the problem, but simply got the cold shoulder. We were dismayed by the way we were treated. As a result, we voted with money by withholding MNA’s portion of our askings, but we gave that portion to the AC. Even so, we get letters from the AC near year’s end asking if we give more askings. There’s a lot of asking going on.

Of the “failed” MNA church plants in our Presbytery, you can count on one hand the number of people that remained PCA—and have fingers left over. We attempted to explain to headquarters and the regional MNA rep that congregations on the Left Coast are, at best, “fledgling” and, as often as not, the parachuted planter landed between two congregations that were trying to become more established in a very difficult place to minister. Our pleas went unheeded. What is the current actuality now?

Well, of those churches planted by MNA in our Presbytery—one plant and 11-12 un-Presbyterian “site” churches, the grand total of donations to the AC for 2009 was a whopping $0.00. The total to all other committees in the PCA from these same churches totaled $4,800, or $400/congregation. The combined budgets for these churches approximated $4,000,000.00 (without TARP, bailout money, or any of the $26.1 billion the current administration just added to our tax burden). One might think that the AC would want to address this egregious, glaring discrepancy before embarking on a plan to tax those churches who have faithfully contributed in the past.

By God’s grace, my home congregation has contributed the required “askings” since we learned this was part of being PCA. How is that working out now? The actual figures for 2009 is that our congregation is $200.00 short of paying more to the AC than every particularized church in South Coast Presbytery combined. It is time to get all this out on the table and deal with it. I’m willing to wager that if we went back into the records to, say, 2005, we would discover these congregations didn’t contribute anything then. Now, the AC wants us to pay a tax. This is mass punishment. It would seem that the leadership might want to sit down and have a heart-to-heart, man-to-man, face-to-face conversation with some of these congregations before they threaten mass punishment in the form of an unfair and unwarranted ecclesiastical tax. What would the justification be for such a precedent? If the AC is having monetary problems, how difficult would it be for them to address these gaps in the “askings?” The AC could, for example, speak directly to the delinquent congregations, irrespective of pastor or congregation size. Certainly, it is not the case in the PCA that all are equal, but some are more equal than others, is it? Let me be very specific, precise, and crystal clear about what I mean. If you check the records of giving, one very prominent congregation in New York gave $0.00 to the AC in 2006. Interesting stat. There is something wrong when an established congregation cannot or will not contribute anything to a PCA committee, unless the Session of that congregation has good reason not to, as Grace believes it does with the MNA committee.

It is high time, indeed past time for our committees in Lawrenceville to stop acting like our local, state, and federal politicians and start acting like we actually exist and matter. Let me be specific and clear: When we call, we should not be treated as if we are an imposition. If we send emails, we expect answers. If we make requests and the request is unreasonable, a polite No will suffice accompanied by why it is unreasonable. Many of us are frustrated—highly frustrated and sometimes downright angry—with the way headquarters treats us.

Our PCA committees need to realize this, acknowledge it, and devise ways—strategic or otherwise—to deal with the congregations biblically. Listening would be a good start in the right direction. One of our “Themes, Goals, and Means” ought to be, I think, Lawrenceville acting like they appreciate us rather than acting as if we are a bother to them. This perception from a number of congregations is exacerbated by a condescending attitude. Most congregations are semi-literate and basically supportive—very supportive—of the PCA. I would add we are actually those who support the PCA with our prayers and our finances and would like to receive that kind of respect and trust. As I went through the 2009 contribution list it did seem to me that those congregations that gave zero get more respect than the congregations that contribute.

Third, and finally, (I’ll get around to Theme # 2 later!) I was listening to talk radio on my way home from my study yesterday (8.11) and heard Mike Gallagher talking about how many pastors and priests today are telling their respective congregations that we should welcome illegal aliens. I listened to this just after someone emailed me photos of Hispanics in AZ having spray-painted American and AZ state flags and then spread them on the ground and walked on them. I know. We should welcome all the illegal immigrants and pay for them too.

At least that is believed by some. I don’t share that belief. I’m also willing to believe that my home congregation does as much if not more than many churches who are “missional” when it comes to feeding Hispanics. We have a special pantry for them—and for anyone else, by the way—and they can always take what they need. We’re so “missional” we don’t even ask them to show us their “papers.” But I was thinking as I listened to Gallagher’s comments that we have a number of people at PCA headquarters that categorically refuse to call illegal aliens, well, illegal aliens. They prefer “undocumented workers.” When I called the MNA committee on this, I was totally ignored. One can only wonder how this kind of politically correct claptrap might play out in a local congregation.

The pastor confronts brother Smith and says, “Brother Smith, we have evidence that you are committing adultery.” Brother Smith answers, “Adultery? You’re kidding, right? That’s such an unsavory, unpopular, bigoted term! Are you a bigot, pastor?” Shocked by such an accusation, the pastor replies, “Why no, of course not!”I’m not like that Ron Gleason. Why, I don’t even own a gun, much less carry one! No, Brother Smith, I am the poster boy for toleration.” “Well,” Brother Smith responds, “that’s nice to hear, pastor. Therefore, let’s just say that I’m having undocumented sex. Why I’m just having the sex that many Americans will not have. The country needs me. I’m paying my taxes and helping the economy. I’m providing my church family an opportunity to witness the gospel.”

You see, it’s not just the Roman Catholic priests and the emergents that are guilty of ethical euphemism, but it’s also the PCA and it’s also at PCA headquarters that congregations hear politically correct language—oh, and did I mention that we also hear similar things from byFaith magazine, unless they want money and subscribers, and then they’re more pleasant. Maybe our ethical confusion has its origin in the expressed fact (see the Strategic Plan, pp. 1-2) that the PCA has not yet figured out precisely what it means to be Reformed. Maybe the PCA should solve that one quickly before it becomes too late—way too late.

The Aftermath of the PCA’s 38th General Assembly (V)

2010-08-05T16:02:00.001-07:00

Means # 1: Encouraging Forums for New Ideas

We are sorting through the Themes, Goals, and Means of the Strategic Plan of the PCA: Theme # 1 (Civil Conversation), Goal # 1 (Establish places to enter into civil conversations about the best ways to advance the PCA’s faithfulness to biblical belief, ministry, and mission). Means # 1-3 will be the subjects of this installment.

The Administrative Committee proposes that—and this is Means # 1—the PCA “Provide public forums at GA to discuss difficult subjects or new ideas without vote, offering charitable judgments among elders in the fellowship of ministry.” I would like to raise a few questions, mainly of clarification. First, who will decide what the topics of these public forums will be? Will delegates who have paid their “ecclesiastical taxes”—more on this in subsequent installments—have any say whatsoever in the subject matter of these public forums? In addition, it might be helpful to know what both the “difficult subjects” and “new ideas” are and who will decide each category. Will there be a vote on difficult subjects and new ideas without vote?

Allow me a personal example of what I consider to be a difficult subject. I understand that among some in the PCA that there is an appreciation of Dr. N.T. Wright. Since I strive to keep up with trends, fads, and developments in theology, I have read large selections of Dr. Wright’s musings. In the area of the doctrine of justification by faith, I find Dr. Wright leaning more towards a Roman Catholic understanding of the doctrine than a Reformed one.[1] That’s my settled conviction. A few years back, a church planter in my Presbytery had new Christians reading N.T. Wright in a Bible study. In one sense, that was his prerogative, and since he had no Elders, there was no one to cry, “Foul!” or “Stop!” He charged ahead. If there is a rather wholesale appreciation for Dr. Wright, it is little wonder to me that the Strategic Plan writes that “Determining what it meant to be true to the Reformed faith was not as unifying, and created significant debates among us…” I’ll bet it did, especially if we have church planters putting forth N.T. Wright as opposed to, say, Herman Ridderbos and his classic treatise on Paul.[2]

Second, I would like to ask this: Don’t we already have forums where “difficult subjects” are discussed without vote? What is the purpose of seminars and what was the purpose of the last two discussions between Lig Duncan and Tim Keller? Both of those discussions were forums where no votes were cast.

Third, if “new ideas” are promoted at such a forum, will there be a representation of differing sides of these new ideas, or will only one side be presented? If it is to be only one side presented then there will, no doubt, be a civil conversation, but will also likely decide little or nothing. The delegates can walk away with the idea that they heard a civil discussion, but for the rest, it would be like kissing your sister. Since I’m an only child, I have no experience in kissing a sister, but it sounds rather, well… Moreover, who would decide precisely what constitutes a “new idea” and if it is worthy of a forum/seminar. Without active delegate participation and representation the likelihood of something like this “catching on” seems miniscule and could quite possibly end up being a “pep rally” for those anointed ones who want their “new ideas” to be heard and accepted. Only to encourage one side is to put undue pressure on the other side.

Fourth, where would the assembly find the time for more “forums” and “discussions”? Time is at a premium as it is. Adding more forums in the same time frame would only add pressure to a schedule that is already quite full. Would GA be extended by a day to accommodate these forums? Would they be mandatory? Would there be a financial penalty for not attending? Who would pay for the extra day’s expenses and time away from one’s family?

Finally, who will be the arbiter regarding “charitable judgments”? That is to say, if a delegate wishes to push a point in one of the forums, will there be a judge who will tell the TE or RE that he is out of bounds? Do we not expect elders to act with biblical decorum and to offer charitable judgments in the first place? Is pressing a valid point on a “difficult subject” or “new idea” not charitable? Is disagreement uncharitable? I was a commissioner on the Overtures Committee this year and thoroughly enjoyed the entire experience. I will add to that, however, that we certainly felt the freedom to object differing views and to express our disagreement as Christians. Out of order was out of order and out of bounds was out of bounds.

Means # 2: Similar Forums at Presbyteries:

Means # 2 suggests that we encourage similar forums at the Presbytery level. Here, I am convinced that the Administrative Committee is almost totally out of touch with what transpires in some Presbyteries. Understanding that the PCA tends to concentrate on what occurs in the Southeast of the United States, I’ll venture to use the example of my Presbytery: South Coast. While it may be somewhat atypical, it is not totally so. I know this from conversations I’ve had with colleagues from other Presbyteries.

While the AC addresses real or perceived “hot button” topics at the GA level, they do not seem to understand the dynamic at the Presbytery level. If they simply want “civil conversations” regarding “difficult subjects” I’ll supply two: The continuing strife over the Federal Vision and so-called New Perspective on Paul and the defiance by some in the PCA regarding unordained but “commissioned” female deacons.

At two successive GAs the motion was made to erect a study committee to aid and abet the TEs and their understanding of both of these issues. It was also suggested that some might have subscribed to the Westminster Standards without fully understanding what they were signing or that they needed help understanding what the Westminster Standards meant. I beg your pardon! Are we talking about seminary graduates here? Is it an insinuation or fact that there are some who “signed on the dotted line” who did not know what they were signing or getting into? I certainly hope not! That is simply inexcusable. When I was a member of the Reformed churches in The Netherlands (which is very close to Holland) and Canada I subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity. I did not sign them first and then read them. That would have been to have fallen into the Nancy Pelosi or Congress Fallacy. No, the actual signature came after I read, understood, and agreed with those confessional statements. Surely the same procedure applies to PCA pastors, evangelists, and church planters, doesn’t it?

But there are larger problems at the Presbytery level that mere “similar forums” will not address. First, there are a number of Presbyters that arrive late and leave early. In my Presbytery these tend to be the same folks. Apparently, they are busier and more important than the garden-variety delegate. I might add that these PCA TEs also tend to shy away from much participation in Presbytery. Committees are anathema to them as are serving as recording clerk, treasurer, or moderator. Stated clerk is a whole different animal when it comes to finding volunteers.

Second, even though our Presbytery only meets three times a year, some of the TEs schedule other events on those days and just like some businesses in America are deemed too big to fail, these events take precedence over everything.

Third, we have attempted on several occasions to urge those who see nothing wrong with having women serve as unordained deacons, lead in prayer, or read Scripture in the public worship of God to debate those issues, for whatever reason we simply cannot seem to find the time to have those debates. In a fashion akin to Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology of Hope, the future remains eternally future. Thank you, Ernst Bloch.

Fourth, if these similar forums at the Presbytery level are to be, in some sense, a continuation of the discussions at each year’s GA, then some method will have to be found to encourage more delegates from each Presbytery to attend GA. Unfortunately, the current proposal from the Administrative Committee will, in all likelihood, have the exact opposite effect. Moreover, some method will need to be devised to encourage the delegates to GA actually to read the material before they arrive and then to be active participants in the various committees and discussions.

How does one accomplish that? In essence, the answer is simple: You don’t because you cannot. It is impossible for some committee to gin up a human method by which delegates become active. Is there a solution? Yes, I believe that there is, but it has nothing to do with a “top down” edict or “pay-to-play” tax. The solution is more of an attitudinal one that must flow forth from within and from a desire truly to be Presbyterian. I and every other TE must take joy and delight in being PCA and recognize that to be Presbyterian involves more than ministry in my local covenant community/congregation. Unless this happens, some will simply go through the motions of being PCA, but it will mean little or nothing.

It involves, among a host of other things, active participation at the Presbytery level as well as at the GA level. It means committee work and spending less time on our special events that supersede Presbytery and less time in wandering the halls and networking during GA. This is not to say that we cannot sit down and relax in the evening and have an adult beverage or ten and connect with friends. GA does entail, however, that we are there to work; to do God’s work; to do the work of the Church and that must take priority. Those are simply some preliminary thoughts. Let’s move on.

Means # 3: Encourage Gatherings of Non-Agreeing Enclaves:

This article reads as follows in its totality: “Encourage gatherings of non-agreeing enclaves to discuss major denomination-changing or culture-changing ideas, and how to live together with differences.” It seems that the AC means non-agreeing enclaves within the PCA here. What might constitute “major denomination-changing” ideas? Oh, I know! The Federal Vision or unordained female deacons. Both of these are major changing ideas, since they cannot be found in or substantiated by Scripture or the Westminster Standards. Or how about totally disregarding what the BCO says and going ahead and doing what you want to anyway? Might that, in some sense, be a major denomination changing idea? But, wait! How do we—or some higher powers—decide which disregard we will tolerate? Who will judge this? Might the AC judge that PCA congregations that insist on moving ahead with commissioning unordained women to the office of deacon is fully acceptable, while not paying the “pay-to-play” tax is unacceptable? That would be very interesting since a solid case can be made that the BCO is crystal clear on who might and might not be a deacon and “iffy” on congregations paying taxes to some bureaucracy. This could give the impression that the AC is being, well, “selective,” couldn’t it?

Another major denomination-changing idea might be paedo-communion. Yep, that would rate right up there. But the assumption from the AC is that there is a need, in the first place, to discuss major denomination-changing ideas. I, for one, would be very interested in seeing what might comprise that list. Obviously, someone must have it and I think it is incumbent upon the AC to let us all in on what the contents of that list are. If no such list exists, why are we wasting our time tilting at windmills?

Now, I am very interested in what might be on the “culture-changing” ideas list. It just so happens that I am contributing an article in the book I’m co-editing for David Wells’ Festschrift. The article is taken from Dr. Herman Bavinck’s Stone Lectures (1908/1909) at Princeton. The lecture is entitled “Revelation and Culture.” In all of our discussions and deliberations about “culture” and the need to “engage culture,” I have yet to read a satisfactory definition of culture and what a proper biblical approach to “engaging” it might look like.

Ostensibly, byFaith magazine writes a lot about culture, but I have yet to read an article that addressed the “essence” or ontology of culture. Lord willing, in the next installment, I’ll give you some insights from Bavinck. I will not give you the whole article because I want you to buy the book so I can pay for my Lear Jet, but I will provide some insights that I know you’ll find more helpful than the mere admonition to get out there and engage the culture for the Gipper.

Finally, Means # 3 wants us to discuss “how to live together with differences.” I’m not at all certain what that is supposed to mean in this context. It really would depend on what those differences were, wouldn’t it, and how large the doctrinal and ethical chasms between the sides became? Let me illustrate. When we lived in Amsterdam, we had male homosexuals living on both sides of us. We were quite civil in our conversations (the PCA would have been proud of us!) and we did civil things for each other such as getting each other’s mail while the other was on vacation, borrowing sugar, flour, and the like. We did not, however, allow them to babysit our sons, nor did we “buy into” their lifestyle. In fact, through our civil conversations we discovered just how devastating that lifestyle is. So, in that sense, we lived together with our differences. Had they wanted us to “buy into” (read: accept) their lifestyle, we would not have “lived together with our differences.”

Mutatis mutandis, the same would hold for “differences” within the PCA. If some “non-agreeing enclave” wished to revert to a quasi-Roman Catholic notion of the Eucharist there should not be a desire to live together with differences, should there be? The same would be true of the idea of infused grace in the sacraments, a moral view of the atonement, annihilationism, Open Theism, or a wide variety of other doctrines. What I said from the floor of GA I reiterate here. This “plan” is so terribly vague and open-ended I’m really quite surprised that theologians put it together. This plan does not serve the PCA well.

This plan has been put forward as the direction of the PCA for the future. That being the case, one might reasonably expect a great deal more precision than is on paper. One can only hope that the AC and the PCA leadership would and could do much better as we move forward. As I learned when I served as an armor officer, leadership means substantially more than merely telling people what to do. I keep hearing about “servant leadership,” which is a good thing, but I have rarely, if ever, had Atlanta confer with either Presbyteries or congregations about what they would like. What I have experienced, more often than not, is headquarters simply telling us what is going to happen and how much it’s going to cost. If we are truly concerned about all the congregations in the PCA, the various committees might consider consulting with the various congregations. Otherwise, PCA headquarters could very well end up looking and acting like Congress, which, at last look, had an approval rating of 11%. One can only wonder what a similar survey within the PCA regarding how headquarters is doing might reveal.

[1] See John Fesko, Justification, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2008); Peter Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001); Cornelis Venema, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2006); & Guy Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2004).

[2] Herman Ridderbos, Paulus. Ontwerp van Zijn Theologie, (Kampen: Kok, 1966); E.T.: Paul. An Outline of His Theology, (John Richard De Witt [trans.]), (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.)

The Aftermath of the PCA’s 38th General Assembly (IV)

2010-07-29T18:55:00.001-07:00

Defining the Terms

Clarity and precision of language is rapidly becoming a lost art.[1] Modern culture revels in the destruction of the English language and it’s not uncommon to hear a younger person say to an older person, “Sup, dude.” It’s even worse when an older person says it to a younger person. I recently read a sermon by a younger theological who told his audience at least five times that God is “big.” Granted that he is, aren’t their many more biblical terms to explain God’s awesomeness, holiness, righteousness, infinity, eternity, and unchangeableness than “big”?

I say this because the language of the Strategic Plan suffers enormously from imprecision, and this is not something I expect from a committee of educated theologians. While we don’t want to engage in Reformed casuistry, it is substantially more helpful to fill in as many blanks and gaps as we can, especially if we are expected to pass a long-range strategic plan. Nobody wants to pass a proposal and then be told what it actually means, or entails. I call that the Nancy Pelosi approach: “We’re going to have to pass the bill first before we can find out what’s actually in it.” While not verbatim, that is a reasonable paraphrase of Madam Speaker. Is there any wonder the country is in trouble?

Currently, we are examining and trying to unpack the intent of Theme # 1 of the Strategic Plan (Civil Conversation). I noted in a previous issue that this theme is tantamount to breaking down an open door. Civil conversation and discourse must be inherent among those who are true and truly Christians. In other words, civil conversation is not an option, but rather part of the biblical ethos, lifestyle, and worldview. We’ve also investigated the Goal of Theme 1 (Establish places to enter into civil conversations about the best ways to advance the PCA’s faithfulness to biblical belief, ministry, and mission), but I want to make just a few more comments before we speak to the Means under Theme 1.

This Goal cannot possibly be as “open-ended” as it sounds. Let me tell you why. The first word in the Goal poses a problem. To “establish” something, anything can mean quite a few different concepts in a person’s mind. Since the committee did not take the time to define the term, let’s simply have recourse to a garden-variety dictionary to help us. The Oxford Dictionary of Current English (you know, like, ‘sup)—note that I’m “big” into current English—defines “establish” in this manner: “set up (a business, system, etc.) on a permanent basis,” “settle (a person or oneself) in some capacity,” “achieve permanent acceptance for (a custom, belief, etc.),” and “place (fact etc.) beyond dispute.” If any or all of these accepted definitions are what the Administrative Committee has in mind, then several questions come to mind rather immediately. First, who will be the person or persons who will “establish” the venues of civil conversation? One might think that what is meant here is something along the lines of the two discussions (certainly neither of these could qualify as debates by any reasonable stretch of the imagination) that were held between Tim Keller and Ligon Duncan. Both discussions were “civil,” but they were also rather like watching curling on TV. (I do like the yelling and broom work in curling. Exciting. Very exciting.)

Question: As “civil” as those conversations were, would there be any possibility of suggestions from other delegates about discussions or debates? Would the AC respond favorably, or does it have absolute authority to set the agenda and define the grounds upon which discussions/debates are to be conducted? I’m just askin’. In part because it has been my experience that the AC, as helpful as it is in other areas, and it is helpful, ignored every one of my emails requesting them to consider taping and putting the proceedings of what they taught stated clerks to do on CD of when I was stated clerk of South Coast Presbytery. It was an impossible turn-around for me, even taking a redeye out of LAX, but I was ignored.

I say this not to “diss” the AC. I’m sure they’re busy, but because it is part and parcel of what might be called a “bureaucracy mentality.” Naturally, those in favor of civil conversations want to avoid such a mentality at all costs—at least, I would think they would. In summary, the word “establish” needs to be tweaked or clarified to elucidate precisely who will establish the places.

This brings me to my next point: The word “places.” I take that word in the sense of venues. I have attended General Assemblies since becoming PCA back in 1995. In that time, quite a few issues have been debated, sometimes vigorously. While each side pressed its respective points, decorum was maintained. Brothers in the Lord may disagree and sometimes disagree sharply, but nothing has ever come to fisticuffs, name-calling, or foul language. It was all quite, well, civil. That being the case, it does make one wonder what is “behind” Goal 1. If we’re already holding civil conversations and have in the past, where is the AC going with this? Is there “more” they want to do? Possibly, yes there is more. In that case, it is incumbent upon those who ostensibly represent us (in some sense) and who represent the PCA to spell out what their ultimate aim is. Doesn’t that seem reasonable, civil, and Christian? If nothing more is meant than what we’ve already been doing, then this is a waste of time; if “more” is intended then the AC needs to give us a list—not a comprehensive list, but certainly a representative list—of what this will look like.

Now let’s focus in on an important phrase in Goal 1: “the best ways.” The AC desires to establish conversations about “the best ways” to the PCA’s faithfulness to biblical belief, ministry, and mission. Well, who could object to that? But have we not been aiming at “the best ways” of doing these things in the history of the PCA? If our history in that regard was a bust, then we obviously and clearly need to retool what we’ve been doing. The question, of course, is who gets to participate in the retooling process? Will this be a “top down” here it is, like it or lump it approach or will individual churches and Presbyteries be able to participate? What if some object that what is presented does not constitute “the best ways,” but rather smack of moving left-of-center ways, dubious ways, or pragmatic, non-biblical ways? Will there be representation to allow participation is what these “best ways” are? Or, will the determination be made with a view to Manhattan, Dallas, Atlanta, Jackson, or Birmingham, with total disregard for Rooster Poot, OK, Yellow Knife, Canada (There. I threw a bone to our neighbors to the north. “On, King! On, you big husky!” Remember that? No, some of you don’t. SGT Preston of the Yukon.), Somewhere unpronounceable, SD, or Yorba Linda, CA?

In other words, what are the ground rules that will guide the PCA into “the best ways” to advance the PCA’s desires? M. Stanton Evans once quipped, “The secret of winning a debate is to define the grounds on which it is conducted.”[2] With the necessary changes being made, I’m asking the question who will define the grounds concerning “the best ways”? In order to make a good decision, all the churches and Presbyteries need to have this explained to them.

On the other hand, a rather succinct answer to the definitive grounds of “the best ways” question is merely to answer by say, “The Bible and the Westminster Standards.” Do they not provide us with the grounds for the PCA’s faithfulness to biblical belief, ministry, and mission? Am I missing something here? It is both astounding and astonishing that not a word was mentioned about what we already have at our disposal in the Word of God and our creeds. I know, both of those are assumed. Okay, but we certainly don’t find either one mentioned in the Themes, Goals, and Means. If we want to declare that we have always held to Scripture and the Westminster Standards, then what precisely is the origin of our problem? Have we missed the mark so horribly that now we must seek other “ways”? How has leadership missed this for these many years?

Is that an accusation? You bet it is! When I served in the military, the leadership was responsible and the proverbial buck stopped with them. (And those of us who served remember that “it” all ran downhill.) This first Goal is, therefore, a tacit admission that the leadership in the PCA has not done its job or was incapable of doing its job. This combined with the AC’s admission that it has not been able to fix the deplorable financial situation for 36 years gives both pause for reflection and cause for deep concern.

In our next installment, we’ll begin to investigate the three Means in the first Theme. I’ll give you a little insight into what I’ll be discussing under Means # 3, when it speaks about “culture-changing” ideas. We’re going to ask some serious questions about the essential nature of culture and see if we can get a workable and working definition of what that is and what it is not. In certain quarters of the PCA, we are reminded that we are to be “engaging the culture.” What does that mean concretely and specifically? I have an upcoming article in the Festschrift that I am privileged to co-edit with Gary Johnson for David Wells. The article is on Herman Bavinck’s views on God’s revelation and culture. I will use excerpts from that article to firm up what culture is. I will also ask a number of pastors in the PCA precisely how they are training their congregations to engage the culture. It’s one thing to tell them to do it; it’s quite another thing to equip them to do it. If your pastor hasn’t told you clearly what culture is and how you’re supposed to transform it or engage it, invite him to teach a Sunday School class to explain to you what culture is.

[1] See John McWhorter, Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care, (NY: Gotham, 2003).

[2] M. Stanton Evans, Clear and Present Dangers, (NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, Inc., 1975), p. 203.