Thanks for your remarks. In your original column you inserted a statement "at no time should elders feel superior to deacons". Interesting statement. I would add that at no time should an elder feel superior to anyone. At no time should a preacher feel superior, and at no time should an evangelist or deacon feel superior. I wonder if you agree that the church order gives the appearance of superiority to preachers, compared to elders and deacons. The number of articles devoted to preachers/pastors/ministers for how they are qualified, how they are disqualified, when they are retired, and when not retired, how they are examined, and what they may and may not do, compared to the one article that combines the offices of elder and deacon as a sort of after thought. We make excuses for this, and rationalize it away, but in fact it is a symptom of how we live as church. It certainly counters the explicit statement in the church order which states that no office bearer should lord it over another, and all offices are equal in honor.
Your excellent scriptural examples of deacons baptizing and preaching certainly also calls into question the generalized restrictions on elders and deacons with regard to preaching and sacraments. The apostle Peter appealed to elders as a fellow elder, and not as a "superior" apostolic office holder, even though he had the credentials of living and walking with Jesus. We can pretty well assume that all elders shared the gospel and preached the good news, and probably most deacons did as well. And likely baptized new believers also. And the church grew mightily.
Perhaps you could enlighten for me whether scripture says more about immoral living in the body of believers, or about who can baptize or preach. And which of the two do we as a church adhere more strictly to?
An interesting concept, Greg. More bible based than "self-based". That both men and women can be "sons of God" seems to be much more egalitarian than our present day concepts of gender equality. It leaves no room for distinguishing any kind of difference between sons of God and daughters of God, in terms of God's love and salvation for us. Thanks for your words.
We can argue about words till the cows come home. Fact of the matter is that "man" is often used to mean mankind, which includes boys, and girls, and women, and men. When the term is used, it implies an equality in significance of all of the human race, genders, ages, colors, languages, ethnicities. Trying to remove that meaning, is simply highlighting the differences rather than the similarities (which is the exact opposite of your intent).
It is quite obvious that "sons" refers to both males and females. See below.
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
[ God Disciplines His Sons ] Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
Tim Brown... wow! lots of interesting controversies about grace, gospel, faith leading to sanctification, assurance, etc., etc.. in the links you provided but the bottom line for me is simple. Saved by grace through faith. and then, "shall we sin more, so that grace may abound?" Christ talked more about obedience, than He did about grace. Although He exhibited grace in his life and actions. And in his death and resurrection.
Lately, I've heard the quote, "judge not, that you be not judged", used as a way of muting the commands of obedience. It is a way of neutering the authority of elders and pastors. It is often used as a way of reducing the commands of Christ in our daily lives.
We can debate the theological precepts forever, but the bottom line is that our desire to follow Christ is always fighting with our sinful nature. We are sinful saints. When we stop fighting against that sinful nature, then sin wins. Pray for the Spirit to fill us, to win the victory over the daily sin in our lives. Scripture says that no one who follows Christ continues to sin. Don't make excuses for it, and don't try to justify yourself in your sin. Believe it and do it right.
In our church, which is quite small, we have four serving office bearers who serve the dual role of elder and deacon, so that would be one example where the offices cooperate with each other. If you are both an elder and a deacon, then the one office will accompany the other. And if you are a pastoral elder, then you might even have three offices in one. Hmmnn.
Disagreements have their place, and they are inevitable. However, when a disagreement lasts for decades, it is not always good to have it too close to daily or weekly activities, such as the local church or classis. If you live in a city, and want to attend a complementarian church instead of a "liberal" church, you can probably do so. You can live in a semblance of peace, and still participate in the disagreement at various times via letters, internet, or different assemblies on a less frequent basis. There is no need to assume a need to "differ" within classis, when there are numerous other places and ocassions for making those arguments known, such as synod perhaps, or in this day and age, discussion blogs, networks, etc. Furthermore, there is the added benefit of having a larger audience, perspectives from outside the denomination, and being involved in a discussion that does not become so personal and acrimonious. So I don't think the argument that we need to have differences within classis on this issue hold much water.
As we can see in the quote Bev, from your linked site, the difficulty is usually in deciding what is essential, and what is not. We know from the epistles of John that obedience is "essential" to sanctification, to christian living and christian witness, and we know from Jude that we should contend for the faith, and that "certain people have turned the gospel of grace into a license for immorality", which would suggest that morality is also essential. But the details, the details of how to work this out.... that's where we often run into trouble...
"Schultze’s sermon indicates, though, that by 1902 there was no agreement on just what things were essential and which were non-essential within the Moravian Church let alone in the wider church. Despite the fact that the “Moravian motto” does not clarify what are essential things, the call for a type of unity that allows liberty of expression in some things clearly resonates with many people. Other denominations today claim this same phrase as a motto, especially churches that emerged out of the Campbellite movement in 19th century America."
Bonnie's comments that the healthiest churches have least tolerance for bad behaviour is a good one. Her comments about having lower standards than other professions, while well intended, seems to miss the main point of not tolerating bad behaviour. It is not because of a professional title, or occupation, but because of the main purpose of officebearers such as pastors elders and deacons, to teach, lead, exemplify the grace of Christ and the obedience that comes with it. Since everyone struggles with sin, we all need to encourage each other (mutual accountability) and this encouragement can be positive, as well as negative encouragement (not tolerating sin). What is the point of having a pastor preaching the gospel while he denies it in his life, in his visible witness? Same applies to an elder. That doesn't mean that elders and pastors are perfect, and we need to live in an attitude of forgiveness. But grace comes with repentance and change and newness of life. In some cases, if the personal struggle is too long and too big, then that would be a clear sign that God has another calling in mind for the individual. If the offense is against a vulnerable person based on position of trust, then probably that also is quickly a sign that God has another calling in mind.
The fear of not being forgiven ought to be greater than the fear of changing an occupation. The fear of idolators, adulterers, fornicators, homsex practicers, not entering heaven, ought to be greater than the fear of losing prestige or position with mere men. Grace requires repentance. By not addressing these issues, we may be condemning some pastors, elders, deacons or even any self-professed christian to hell. Jesus said there will be those who say, "Lord, Lord, didn't we do miracles and heal and cast out demons?" And God will say, "I never knew you". why? because they were not obedient, and worshipped other idols, of self, or sex, or other things. This is much more serious than comparing standards to some of the professions. "he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins: James 5.
Bev, you are bringing up touchy subjects, and an area which has a lot of shades in it. I think it is good you courageously bring it up. If what you say about 60 to 80% of spiritual leaders struggling with this issue is true, then how do we deal with this issue? I think it goes further than just accessing stuff on the internet, although that is the most pernicious. What was salacious and covered in brown paper fifty years ago, is now plastered on billboards along the highway, it seems. Stuff on the internet comes up uninvited, and for some, it is like giving candy to a baby, or alcohol to an alcoholic.
Perhaps it is all part of a larger picture, which tolerates shacking up, premarital sex, easy divorce, immodest dress, R rated and PG rated movies. The more that this permeates the church, the harder it is to fight against porn as well. It seems if 60% of leaders are struggling with this probably at a variety of levels, then we need to find ways of combating this problem in a generic way. We have a safe church committee for protection of young children, and protection of churches from liability. But perhaps we should have a specific group or committee or program developing and promoting safeguards for internet viewing, prayer for combatting this vile sin, and materials explaining the whys of it, and also the ways of conquering it, perhaps like the AA twelve step program.
If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)
Posted in: Why Every Elder Needs a Deacon
Thanks for your remarks. In your original column you inserted a statement "at no time should elders feel superior to deacons". Interesting statement. I would add that at no time should an elder feel superior to anyone. At no time should a preacher feel superior, and at no time should an evangelist or deacon feel superior. I wonder if you agree that the church order gives the appearance of superiority to preachers, compared to elders and deacons. The number of articles devoted to preachers/pastors/ministers for how they are qualified, how they are disqualified, when they are retired, and when not retired, how they are examined, and what they may and may not do, compared to the one article that combines the offices of elder and deacon as a sort of after thought. We make excuses for this, and rationalize it away, but in fact it is a symptom of how we live as church. It certainly counters the explicit statement in the church order which states that no office bearer should lord it over another, and all offices are equal in honor.
Your excellent scriptural examples of deacons baptizing and preaching certainly also calls into question the generalized restrictions on elders and deacons with regard to preaching and sacraments. The apostle Peter appealed to elders as a fellow elder, and not as a "superior" apostolic office holder, even though he had the credentials of living and walking with Jesus. We can pretty well assume that all elders shared the gospel and preached the good news, and probably most deacons did as well. And likely baptized new believers also. And the church grew mightily.
Perhaps you could enlighten for me whether scripture says more about immoral living in the body of believers, or about who can baptize or preach. And which of the two do we as a church adhere more strictly to?
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
An interesting concept, Greg. More bible based than "self-based". That both men and women can be "sons of God" seems to be much more egalitarian than our present day concepts of gender equality. It leaves no room for distinguishing any kind of difference between sons of God and daughters of God, in terms of God's love and salvation for us. Thanks for your words.
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
We can argue about words till the cows come home. Fact of the matter is that "man" is often used to mean mankind, which includes boys, and girls, and women, and men. When the term is used, it implies an equality in significance of all of the human race, genders, ages, colors, languages, ethnicities. Trying to remove that meaning, is simply highlighting the differences rather than the similarities (which is the exact opposite of your intent).
It is quite obvious that "sons" refers to both males and females. See below.
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Romans 8:14
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Romans 8:19
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
Romans 9:26
and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
Galatians 3:26
[ Sons of God ] You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Hebrews 2:10
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Hebrews 12:1
[ God Disciplines His Sons ] Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
Tim Brown... wow! lots of interesting controversies about grace, gospel, faith leading to sanctification, assurance, etc., etc.. in the links you provided but the bottom line for me is simple. Saved by grace through faith. and then, "shall we sin more, so that grace may abound?" Christ talked more about obedience, than He did about grace. Although He exhibited grace in his life and actions. And in his death and resurrection.
Lately, I've heard the quote, "judge not, that you be not judged", used as a way of muting the commands of obedience. It is a way of neutering the authority of elders and pastors. It is often used as a way of reducing the commands of Christ in our daily lives.
We can debate the theological precepts forever, but the bottom line is that our desire to follow Christ is always fighting with our sinful nature. We are sinful saints. When we stop fighting against that sinful nature, then sin wins. Pray for the Spirit to fill us, to win the victory over the daily sin in our lives. Scripture says that no one who follows Christ continues to sin. Don't make excuses for it, and don't try to justify yourself in your sin. Believe it and do it right.
Posted in: Why Every Elder Needs a Deacon
In our church, which is quite small, we have four serving office bearers who serve the dual role of elder and deacon, so that would be one example where the offices cooperate with each other. If you are both an elder and a deacon, then the one office will accompany the other. And if you are a pastoral elder, then you might even have three offices in one. Hmmnn.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Disagreements have their place, and they are inevitable. However, when a disagreement lasts for decades, it is not always good to have it too close to daily or weekly activities, such as the local church or classis. If you live in a city, and want to attend a complementarian church instead of a "liberal" church, you can probably do so. You can live in a semblance of peace, and still participate in the disagreement at various times via letters, internet, or different assemblies on a less frequent basis. There is no need to assume a need to "differ" within classis, when there are numerous other places and ocassions for making those arguments known, such as synod perhaps, or in this day and age, discussion blogs, networks, etc. Furthermore, there is the added benefit of having a larger audience, perspectives from outside the denomination, and being involved in a discussion that does not become so personal and acrimonious. So I don't think the argument that we need to have differences within classis on this issue hold much water.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
As we can see in the quote Bev, from your linked site, the difficulty is usually in deciding what is essential, and what is not. We know from the epistles of John that obedience is "essential" to sanctification, to christian living and christian witness, and we know from Jude that we should contend for the faith, and that "certain people have turned the gospel of grace into a license for immorality", which would suggest that morality is also essential. But the details, the details of how to work this out.... that's where we often run into trouble...
"Schultze’s sermon indicates, though, that by 1902 there was no agreement on just what things were essential and which were non-essential within the Moravian Church let alone in the wider church. Despite the fact that the “Moravian motto” does not clarify what are essential things, the call for a type of unity that allows liberty of expression in some things clearly resonates with many people. Other denominations today claim this same phrase as a motto, especially churches that emerged out of the Campbellite movement in 19th century America."
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Mike, as long as you can continue to enjoy and encourage comments like mine , then you are okay with diversity.
Posted in: Of Rob Ford and Pastors
Bonnie's comments that the healthiest churches have least tolerance for bad behaviour is a good one. Her comments about having lower standards than other professions, while well intended, seems to miss the main point of not tolerating bad behaviour. It is not because of a professional title, or occupation, but because of the main purpose of officebearers such as pastors elders and deacons, to teach, lead, exemplify the grace of Christ and the obedience that comes with it. Since everyone struggles with sin, we all need to encourage each other (mutual accountability) and this encouragement can be positive, as well as negative encouragement (not tolerating sin). What is the point of having a pastor preaching the gospel while he denies it in his life, in his visible witness? Same applies to an elder. That doesn't mean that elders and pastors are perfect, and we need to live in an attitude of forgiveness. But grace comes with repentance and change and newness of life. In some cases, if the personal struggle is too long and too big, then that would be a clear sign that God has another calling in mind for the individual. If the offense is against a vulnerable person based on position of trust, then probably that also is quickly a sign that God has another calling in mind.
The fear of not being forgiven ought to be greater than the fear of changing an occupation. The fear of idolators, adulterers, fornicators, homsex practicers, not entering heaven, ought to be greater than the fear of losing prestige or position with mere men. Grace requires repentance. By not addressing these issues, we may be condemning some pastors, elders, deacons or even any self-professed christian to hell. Jesus said there will be those who say, "Lord, Lord, didn't we do miracles and heal and cast out demons?" And God will say, "I never knew you". why? because they were not obedient, and worshipped other idols, of self, or sex, or other things. This is much more serious than comparing standards to some of the professions. "he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins: James 5.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Stay away from Twitter....
Posted in: Of Rob Ford and Pastors
Bev, you are bringing up touchy subjects, and an area which has a lot of shades in it. I think it is good you courageously bring it up. If what you say about 60 to 80% of spiritual leaders struggling with this issue is true, then how do we deal with this issue? I think it goes further than just accessing stuff on the internet, although that is the most pernicious. What was salacious and covered in brown paper fifty years ago, is now plastered on billboards along the highway, it seems. Stuff on the internet comes up uninvited, and for some, it is like giving candy to a baby, or alcohol to an alcoholic.
Perhaps it is all part of a larger picture, which tolerates shacking up, premarital sex, easy divorce, immodest dress, R rated and PG rated movies. The more that this permeates the church, the harder it is to fight against porn as well. It seems if 60% of leaders are struggling with this probably at a variety of levels, then we need to find ways of combating this problem in a generic way. We have a safe church committee for protection of young children, and protection of churches from liability. But perhaps we should have a specific group or committee or program developing and promoting safeguards for internet viewing, prayer for combatting this vile sin, and materials explaining the whys of it, and also the ways of conquering it, perhaps like the AA twelve step program.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)