The RP Witness article is beyond a paywall, so I can't respond directly, but you can find the article here: https://rpwitness.org/trunk/page/article/your-covenant-and-the-new-covenant
A similar article that I'll respond to more directly is here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-church-membership-really-required/ the argument is very similar to John Edgar's argument in the RP Witness.
Remember, the primary Evangelical tools of cognitive dissonance are equivocation and false dichotomy. With that, let's dig in:
The argument of church membership being mandatory is not whether we should or should belong to the "body of Christ" that is, the invisible church, the collection of all believers. The question is whether Christians are commanded to make vows to a local organization called the church. For example, in the RPCNA, you cannot make a profession of faith without also joining the church where you are making that profession. It is a reason why I did not profess faith when I felt a personal connection to Jesus beyond being raised to belief - I did not want to join my parents' church.
Israel is the church and the church is Israel - when Reformed theologians look at the church, they see an unbroken connection between the OT and NT church. Moses was a Christian just as Cornelius was the heir of Abraham. In the OT, the Jewish leaders confused ethnic Israel with salvation, just as the modern-day church has struggled with the connection between membership and salvation (remember Doug Wilson's "Federal Vision"). For both OT and NT, membership in the church was either by birth and acceptance of the covenant - what Rick Gamble would call "age-appropriate faith", or by accepting the sign of the covenant (circumcision or baptism) as a new believer.
So, let's understand that the "congregation" of Israel was never some individual isolated community, but was a nation, an ethnicity*, and a religion. I will say that the ethnicity itself is fluid. Deut. 23:3 says "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the Lord," now, remember that Ruth was a Moabite, meaning that her grandson, David would be a second-generation Moabite, yet David was definitely part of the 'assembly of the Lord'. So, it seems the conclusion is that Ruth became Jewish by accepting the covenant (your people will be my people and your God will be my God (Ruth 1:16).
It's therefore important to understand that the ecclesiology in the OT and NT have to match. It took a number of families to form a synagogue, and there was no guarantee that there would be enough people when the Jews were scattered to form these synagogues everywhere they might migrate, yet, they were still children of Abraham. In the same way, we send missionaries to foreign countries to establish churches, yes, but even if a church doesn't get established we wouldn't force a few converts to move somewhere else to join a local body.
The synagogue is an example of the local church, and the local church is an example of the synagogue - our modern church adopted the synagogue model, which was pervasive in the first century. I believe that there is evidence that the synagogue is not inspired as the model of the church. Jesus taught in the synagogues, and Paul's practice was to preach first at the synagogues (e.g. Acts 17:1-2). So, there's definitely the idea that the synagogue was a good place to share the gospel. However, many of the people Jesus converted, like Jesus himself, were rejected by the synagogue. For example, John 9:22 says, "the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue", so that synagogue was definitely not a "church". John 12:42 says that the Pharisees made people afraid to confess belief in Jesus, lest they be kicked out.
In some ways, Jesus and Paul acknowledge the importance of the local church / synagogue to Judaism/Christianity, but they also don't make it a matter of faith. The church should keep this in mind. What happened to the blind man who was kicked out of the synagogue? Did he lose his salvation as the RPCNA "outside of the church there is no ordinary means of salvation" would suggest? The Bible makes no such argument, in fact, the blind man worships Jesus and chooses Jesus over the Pharisees.
So, it's obviously going to be better to be in a local body of like-minded people who want to serve Jesus but we need to take another look at the synagogue. How many synagogues accepted Jesus? Perhaps one, the synagogue at Berea, but that is even in question, because the Jews from Thessalonica came and stirred up the synagogue against Paul. The track record is extremely poor for synagogues being places truly looking for the coming messiah! What if the same holds for the local church? That would be tragic, and I think we are looking at an Evangelical tragedy.
The visible church is ultimately a collection of like-minded people serving God, not a hierarchy or a boot camp - I want to be careful here. First, Jesus did not threaten those who would leave. In fact, it seems like he almost invited people to leave. After Jesus preaches a difficult sermon, comparing himself to manna, many of his disciples leave. He does not threaten or pursue him. He seems sad, and he asks the disciples, "you do not want to go away also, do you?" (John 6:67) Peter's response is the response of the Christian in a local church today, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life." Jesus also says, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (John 10:27) and "A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
So, first, we establish that those of the flock follow the voice of Jesus. I believe they also follow Jesus's voice when heard through those who are faithful to Jesus, whether brother or sister, deacon, elder or pastor. When people do not follow the leadership, there are two main possibilities, the sheep don't hear the leaders talking with the voice of Jesus, or the leaders are speaking with the voice of Jesus, but the people are not sheep. There can be other mixtures of truth and error, of course.
So, when we talk about elders, there seems to be more of an organic nature to elders than the modern church portrays. Elders are people who are older in the faith, who have a life that demonstrates faithfulness and love towards the brethren. They do not need the force of membership vows or church courts or arbitration clauses, because they speak with the voice of Jesus and the sheep listen and heed. That's the bulk of it. I do believe that there needs to be a mechanism of accountability for all Christians, although mainly to protect the church from wolves - spiritual, emotional, physical and sexual abusers. The church needs to be able to say, be careful of Frank - he's emotionally abusive. Frank will most likely walk out the door, so they may need to tell other churches the same. I don't know quite how that works. What we see in practice, however, is that the main thing elders should be doing, holding each other accountable, is the last thing they want to do in the modern church. Instead we have the Catholic church moving abusive priests from church to church, the Southern Baptist Church moving abusive pastors from church to church, and the more conservative churches trying their best to hide abuse, protect abusers and trap the abused.
I also want to say that like-minded means followers of Jesus. There should be no other bounds. Many of the doctrines we fight over are of no eternal significance, so why not hold your own beliefs, but agree to partner with people from diverse backgrounds? Am I more effective as a Christian if my church is scattered all over town and I visit only those friends, or am I more effective if I join with a church that is less theologically in agreement, but has members nearby where we can fellowship and invite neighbors?
To equip against the Evangelical arguments, what we will expect to see is first, an equivocation between membership in the invisible church and membership in a particular visible church, and second, we will see a false dichotomy where membership = salvation and not being a member is damnation.
So, onto the TGC article. The first section starts with a definition of membership that is clearly the invisible church, and reasonably accurate, but the picture sets up the false dichotomy - "You cut yourself off from your only source of life and nourishment. Like an amputated hand, you will slowly bleed out, wither, and die." This is already starting on equivocation because membership in the invisible church is everything in the TULIP except the T, which is to say there is no leaving the invisible church.
Okay, so here starts the equivocation: "I want you to understand that being a part of the universal church without submitting to a local church is not possible, biblical, or healthy." It's done explicitly, and if you keep your eyes on the shell game, you'll see how it works. It's not possible to be saved without being a member of a local church? Really? Remember that the man kicked out of the synagogue worshiped Jesus! So, that itself is proof, but let's get into his statements.
To imply you can be part of the greater community without first being part of the smaller is not logical. This is full-up equivocation. The invisible church is not merely the collection of all the visible churches. There is overlap, yes, but it's different. The invisible church is all true believers, and the visible church is a mixture of believers. Think of it as overlapping circles. There are members of the invisible church that are not in the visible church, members of the visible church that are not members of the invisible church, members of both and members of none. I believe that the vast majority of invisible church members were members of the visible church, but I'm not sure that the vast majority of visible church members are also in the invisible church. Also, the order is suspect. Do we first become members of the local church and then become Christians? Of course not, we cannot be members without professing faith, so faith (membership in the greater community) precedes membership in the smaller.
Second, it’s not biblical. Every letter in the New Testament assumes Christians are members of local churches. The letters themselves are addressed to local churches. They teach us how to get along with other members, how to encourage the weak within the church, how to conduct ourselves at church, and what to do with unrepentant sinners in the church. They command us to submit to our elders, and encourage us to go to our elders to pray. All these things are impossible if you aren’t a member of a local church.
Okay, let's understand what this pastor is saying. It is impossible to learn how to get along with other believers without being a local church member. It is impossible to encourage the weak brethren without being a local church member. It is impossible to submit to elders without being a local church member. I assume the pastor thinks you've drunk enough of the Kool-Aid by now to have your brain in neutral. My love for the brethren does not come from my authoritarian hierarchy. It comes from my loving God. We know people are Christians because of love. So, this pastor is now showing his true colors. He is saying, you need to be a member of a local church because otherwise, you're not going to have a bunch of authoritarian elders watching you and keeping you in line. You're going to fall into the pit! So, no Perseverance of the Saints for you, sister!
Asking where the Bible commands you to be a church member is like asking where the USGA rulebook for golf insists you be a human. The whole book is addressed to the church.
This guy is a pastor. The Bible is addressed to all humans, not just the church. Wisdom calls in the street, not just to those who would seek her, but to those who do not seek her. Why would wisdom call in the street if not for all people? The righteous have already found her! That said, the analogy doesn't even make sense, and you see his equivocation. "church member" = visible church, "the church" = invisible church.
Finally, living without church membership is not healthy. Independence—the desire to choose for yourself what’s right and wrong—is at the heart of sin. You need the humility lesson of submitting to flawed elders.
Time for the final burst of false dichotomy. It's not "church membership or nothing." We can have a community of believers without a formal institution. We can share counsel and encouragement without a formal institution. We can even counsel those from different backgrounds. I still have Christian friends who are not members of my church or even my denomination. I'm sure this pastor has contacts with other pastors in his town who offer encouragement and counsel. So, let's dissect these statements.
"Choose for yourself" - and the alternative is having others choose what is right and wrong for me? Isn't that why Israel time and time again turned their backs on God? There was a righteous king and people would follow God, and then a wicked king and people would follow the king. My pastor is not my source of truth. The Bible is the source of truth and the Holy Spirit writes the truth on my heart. Saying that I need the local church (actually the pastor and elders) when I have the Bible and the Holy Spirit seems like they want to sell me something that isn't exactly the truth.
"Submitting to flawed elders" again, nothing wrong with submitting to flawed people. My wife and I submit to each other, but we do so with our own wisdom and truth inspired by the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I think this is authoritarian hierarchical horse manure. What this pastor is saying is alternatively, "hey flawed people, submit to your inspired elders because they are right" or "hey people, submit to your elders because, right or wrong, they get to tell you what to do." I believe the second is more close to his intent, and this is precisely why people DO NOT want to join hierarchical authoritarian churches. It's because they will tell a battered wife that she needs to return to her physically abusive husband and submit harder. If she doesn't do it, then they spiritually abuse her by excommunicating her for following, guess what, "the Bible and the Holy Spirit". So, here the logical conclusion of what the pastor is saying is that it is better to submit to wolves than to be out of the local church club. It's a practice of "humility" to submit to a bunch of politically-connected buddies who care more about protecting each other and the pastor than serving Jesus? This is the same "suffering=sanctification" mindset.
45 comments:
Great write up, as usual.
“Independence—the desire to choose for yourself what’s right and wrong—is at the heart of sin. You need the humility lesson of submitting to flawed elders.”
That was one of the most insane things I ever read. At the heart of all sin is a failure to trust God, not independence! Yes, a leaning to independence can go hand in hand with not trusting God, but it’s not itself at the heart of sin. What they are asking people to do, in giving unmitigated trust to people we have good reason to distrust, is trust them and not God. Every Christian has an individual relationship with Jesus, and each Christian should be a Berean and should trust God and their God-given ability as an individual Believer to hear His voice through the scripture. I will not be able to say at the day of judgment that I did what an elder said, and therefore should not be held accountable for it (when my conscience convicted me otherwise). The Bible talks about us searing our consciences, and that is what we do when we willfully ignore our conscience and press on anyway. This isn’t just error, it’s questionably demonic in origin. John Piper has been going off the rails for years now, and almost every article from TGC is getting wackier by the day. The doctrines of these folks are spiraling over a cliff, and they’re taking many over the cliff with them.
I think it's a twisted half truth. Adam chose for himself whether to believe Satan or God and Israel "did what was right in their own eyes." So, in a sense independence is at the root of sin; however, it's independence from God, not independence from an institution.
So, it makes sense that an authoritarian pastor who thinks of himself as the "Vicar of Christ" is going to equivocate independence from God as being independence from authoritarian pastors. It's a common theme of Reformed articles that they equivocate and maintain cognitive dissonance as a way of establishing the pastor as your conscience, in lieu of the Holy Spirit.
"So, in a sense independence is at the root of sin; however, it's independence from God, not independence from an institution."
Perfectly said!
I believe in the importance of membership in a particular congregation. I do think it's the correct duty of a Christian to find a fellowship to unite with and live in a body together.
But I also believe in the superseding importance of direct union with Christ, i.e. membership in the invisible church.
I'm not sure where on the PCA continuum this Jones guy is located in general, but in this piece he is committing major category errors all over the place and totally conflating the two kinds of membership. He may even be intentionally equivocating, too.
This is almost (or maybe more than almost) taking "outside the visible church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" and removing the "ordinary" part of it. Not okay.
I confess that I sometimes think of Anonymous being a bit over the top in railing against the sacerdotalism in NAPARC, and then I read this: "They command us to submit to our elders, and encourage us to go to our elders to pray." Besides sounding suspiciously like advocacy for the priesthood of SOME believers, I'm not really sure what biblical strain of thought could have produced the second half of this sentence. The best I can guess is that it is aiming at James 5:14 and mangling it beyond recognition.
In addition, RiverOaks is listed as a mission church, yet seems very leadership-heavy: 2 pastors (him and an associate), 8 ruling elders, 8 "shepherding elders" (whatever those are; I'm pretty sure the BCO only specifies TEs and REs, and apparently these guys aren't on the Session), and 14 (active) deacons.
I'm sure there are people who thrive in his congregation and love it, and it seems to be numerically healthy (which could explain the leadership numbers, but still not the "shepherding elders"), but this first combination of glances would make me a bit leery.
The fact that it's copied and posted on TGC makes it seem that either TGC is not discerning, or, more likely, given their history, that this is very much in line with what they're selling.
In light of the fact that official church letters are sent out questioning one’s Salvation upon departure of a church only because there is no membership transfer taking place, that prayer is not fully efficient without an elder present (the interpretation of Matt 18:20 is only referring to elders), that it is a practical reality that the Elder’s word is on par with God’s Word, that checking boxes for institutional attendance is held in higher regard than a weekly observance of the spiritual gift of the Lord’s Supper, (our institution activity is more important than God’s obviously), that adherence to the visible church’s traditions regarding Sabbath observance is held higher than what the Lord of the Sabbath Himself said on the subject, etc. etc. Just to name a few! I would say rather than an “over the top” railing against Sacerdotalism, what we actually have in the Protestant world is a kind of denial/ dismissal of just how serious Sacerdotalism is and a kind of downplaying of how much it has indeed infiltrated a majority of Protestant churches.
By very definition Sacerdotalism is a very serious Gospel level type issue. We should view those who practice it so stridently with the same warnings from Galatian chapter one. They are messing with the Gospel itself and will be “accursed.”
Sacerdotalism definition: The religious belief emphasizing the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and humankind.”
Far from being over the top, it is observing reality within most Protestant churches. (Though we like to think only Rome does such things)
It is very real. It’s just that Protestants over the centuries have grown to accept it like the frog boiling over time as a tradition that unfortunately is not called into question enough, let alone measured against what the Word of God actually says.
I vividly remember an ordination ceremony where roughly 20 families were in attendance to install some 12 elders/ leaders. Talk about top heavy authoritarianism. But not one person ( nor myself at the time) thought a thing of it. It is all very plain to see, if one can remove the scales of tradition from one’s eyes. Easier said than done and no doubt I am very guilty myself.
I recall having a conversation with an RPCNA elder regarding biblical requirements of a second service. After much dancing about and gymnastics he admitted there is zero biblical mandate requiring such. Wait for it…….then as his mic drop/ case close he stated….”unless a second or even 3rd service is instituted by the elders, at which time it is the members duty to obey.” See what he did there? So we are to obey God, not men, the Bible is superior to doctrine of men, except when it’s not.
I recall another RPCNA sermon where the pastor’s main thrust was to pose the ‘watch me really convict the pew sitter’s conscience’ by posing the heart penetrating question (and this is exactly the dramatic fashion of rhetoric it was set up in) …. “Christian, What is the central orientation of your life?”
What would you guess his enlightened answer was?
He went on to say….”If the central orientation of your life is not the church (and he clearly meant the visible institutional (c)hurch) then you are not living in accordance with your duty as a Christian.”
So not the orientation of your life needs to be Christ, or relationship with your Heavenly Father, etc. No everything, everywhere all at once always and forever revolves around the absolute idol that is and has become the church.
It was countless interactions and observations of this type that made me leave the RP and NAPARC, never to return.
Sacerdotalism definition: The religious belief emphasizing the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and humankind.
They are flat out preaching a different gospel in those cults.
I've heard "morning and evening sacrifice" as justification for two services on Sunday.
I think for many, there is an innate wanting to hear the best from what's being said, but sometimes the veil is lifted when they see the church justify abuse, or elevate its leadership in a way that seems too popish.
But yes, in the RPCNA, the central orientation is expected to be around the work of the church, and specifically, the work of the elders.
It gets worse, Calvin Troup was pushing to remove the presbytery-nominated Trustees and Corporators from the Geneva boards because "Synod is the church"
Since we're on the subject of sacerdotalism: I was at a GLG ordination service once. The elders had all gathered around the man to be ordained, and the man nominated to pray prayed a nice prayer asking for the Lord's blessing on this man and his ministry. Upon "Amen", another elder piped up: "You have to say the Words." It turned out that he hadn't prayed the Right Words ("we do consecrate something something"), and I'm guessing that he understood this man wasn't properly ordained without them.
It was the same with session meetings, and prayers before service: they had to say the Right Words beforehand.
Sadly this is not just elders/pastors/leaders. I can say that after having spent the better part of three decades in NAPARC churches and a good chunk of that in the RPCNA, when one leaves and openly communicates why (hyper authoritarianism/sacerdotalism) the vast majority of the members give a cold shoulder. It was then that we realized just how vast the brain washing and Koolaid drinking within NAPARC really is. You criticize the church and people will not stand for it, you become a “black sheep” so to speak. It has shown us that the vast majority of Christians are not truth seekers as much as they are defenders of their tribe/team.
Not one person has asked, “How is your relationship with God?” But countless numbers have with a worrying tone asked….”so, what church are you going to be members at?” Frankly it speaks volumes!
So sad and I confess to be very disillusioned by it all.
To this day I struggle every time I am at a visible local church.
And, not sure if you heard, but when Kent Butterfield was installed as a pastor, he had already been a ruling elder, so GLG made it look as close to an ordination as possible (kneeling, hand laid on, etc.) but they didn't say the "right" ordination words. Whether it was Kent's preference or the GLG preference (or both), I found it interesting that it was all about appearances.
I haven't heard the "morning and evening sacrifice" defense in a while. And it seemed like an eisegetical assumption the first time I did hear it. I've been in churches with and without afternoon/evening services. Without fail, where a second worship service occurred, attendance was always lower than at the first service. The possibility of someone being disciplined for not coming to the later service never occurred to me. As far as I know, it also never occurred.
"It gets worse, Calvin Troup was pushing to remove the presbytery-nominated Trustees and Corporators from the Geneva boards because 'Synod is the church.'"
Not trying to miss your point, but I'm guessing he wanted them all to be nominated by the Synod instead of by the Presbyteries? I confess significant ignorance on how this process is supposed to work (and not feeling like looking it up at the moment), so I'm not sure how big of a difference this kind of change would make.
To clarify, I have not seen nor am I suggesting that there was official church discipline because a person did not attend a second service. No hand of steel like that was used, but what was unambiguously used was a manipulative velvet glove of spiritual pride. The clear ethos that one is the "weaker brother" or less mature because one does not attend second service was very much a reality. The real life example I gave of an RPCNA elder/pastor stating that if the Elders institutes a 2nd service that it was the members duty to obey and attend is indicative of that ethos regardless whether it had the teeth of official discipline or not. In the RP there is a mentality that only second class Christians don't attend second services.
I would submit that having weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper should be a way higher priority than a Sunday second service. After all one is instituted by our Lord, the other is primarily a doctrine of men. Yet no surprise in the RPCNA guess which one is held in higher regard? Without question it is second service.
I'm saying that it's not just the local church as an institution, but trying to make the RPCNA as a whole the institution and thus Synod the only viable point of control. In other words, for Geneva to be a "church-controlled" institution, it's not enough that a majority of board members are RP, it's not enough that many of the members are appointed by church courts, it has to be that the board members can only be appointed by the highest court.
In my experience, the second service and prayer meetings just seem to be stumbling blocks put in front of members. I don't have any problem with coming together as a church, but it seemed less about wanting to be together and more about figuring out how committed people were, so you would never have the Session nominate someone who wasn't at the church whenever the doors were open.
At our congregation if you don’t attend the second service you’ll most certainly have a member of the session messaging you, “are you feeling okay?” Or, “Hope everything is alright.” I hate how it’s implied you’re backsliding if you don’t attend… Many times our family just wants to enjoy the evening of rest and attend to our own devotions. I’ve seen people fall asleep during the second service many times. One of the elders usually wakes them up and tell them to pay attention. Still get a chuckle from those moments.
The RPCNA Lord's Supper practice is historical, and, IMO, wrong. It stemmed from the fact that Scottish Presbyterians refused to allow the laity to serve communion. Because the pastors were few and hunted down, communion happened whenever a pastor could make it to their town, which is why it was also a "communion season". It got elevated too highly, and many churches feel like they should only have quarterly, or bi-annual communion presided over by a guest pastor. Some churches practice more regular communion, but then have the special season. Overall, though, it stems from a two-office view where only the pastor can provide the "means of grace" <-- that being a red flag for abusive pastors.
The second service doesn't fit the RPCNA model. Bill Chellis tried to work around it, but failed spectacularly. Worship is "Covenant Renewal" - a liturgical show where the service models walking from darkness to light - reading of the law, prayer of confession, assurance of pardon, offerings, sermon, and then benediction. When it came to a second service (mind you a "worship" service), Chellis said, "the covenant having been renewed [in the first service]..." But if worship is covenant renewal then the second service must also follow that pattern because that is his dictate on how the covenant gets renewed.
It's very sad when the local elders are beating down the sheep. I keep coming back to Jesus saying, "do you want to leave me, too?" and Peter says "Where would we go?". I think that's the true church - we shouldn't need elders with whips beating us into attending because where else would we go? Where I went, the church enacted patriarchal policies that forced women to take care of the children and miss the service, so I had to stop attending the second service so my wife could be fed.
Informative article linked here. I do not agree with every jot and tittle at the “Wicked Shepherds” web site, but I agree with most of it and this article is spot on. Research does show the original scripture texts were in fact doctored/ changed in majority of our Bible translations on this topic to more fit the party line of the institutional church. Ask yourself why?
http://www.wickedshepherds.com/Qualifications.html
I think I fall in the middle of the argument. That article is not fair, in the sense that it doesn't address all of the arguments. Okay, "office" was added to the Bible. That seems problematic, but is it grasping at straws like arguments against the Trinity because "trinity" doesn't exist in scripture? The concepts are there.
For example, when Judas hangs himself, the Apostles chose another to "take his office (NIV)", https://biblehub.com/greek/1984.htm - and that same word appears in 1 Tim 3:1 as "office" (some translations) or "overseership".The Psalm that is quoted, 109:8, has many references in the OT for office. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6486.htm
Also, in Acts 6, the Apostles ask the congregation to choose seven people who they can "appoint over this matter". If there's no office and we just honor all old people, then it seems pointless to choose seven people to fix a problem. I think the "serve the tables" is hyperbole. This isn't a problem that there weren't enough people to put out food. This was an instance of racism, and the apostles said, pick some people we can trust to handle probably the most hot-button issue in the church at the time, systemic racism between the Jews and Gentiles.
"Not one person has asked, “How is your relationship with God?” But countless numbers have with a worrying tone asked….”so, what church are you going to be members at?” Frankly it speaks volumes!"
This is exactly what stood out to me after my wife and I left. The people didn't realize how telling all their communications were- they just confirmed the reasons we took our family and left. It took a while for them to leave us alone, and we almost got the police involved as people from the church were following/stalking us.
The stalking is not okay, but I think the questions are sad and telling. RPCNA members equate spiritual wellbeing with what echelon of church you're attending. Since RPCNA is at the pinnacle, and no church is at the bottom, it's their gauge of your spirituality. In actuality, though, because the pastor and elders "do the ministry" compared to equipping the saints to do the ministry, it's not a valid question in an authoritarian church for a regular member to ask.
It's been one of the challenges for me because I think many pastors feel that the church IS Jesus, when there really is a difference. It comes up over and over that millennials and Gen Z are leaving the church because the church "hurt" them, and it seems like pastors are all too willing to wave that off with a "but... you still need to be part of the church." If my school principal beat me so hard I ended up in the hospital, what would it mean to me if someone said, "but... you still need to go to school." No thanks! Maybe another school would help, but what happens if the vast majority of schools have principals who exude the same abusive vibe? What then?
Instead of trying to shame and browbeat battered Christians back into church, maybe the church needs to figure out how to minister to those who can't set foot in a church building. Intriguingly, it's a similar ministry that the church should have with those who have sexually abused members and have been barred from church grounds because of their sin.
One of my thoughts today was, why does the church want to be an incorporated 501(c)3 organization. Obviously, the tax deduction for donations is part of it, but the other part of it, and perhaps the main part, is that incorporation is legal protection from harm.
In other words, if you are a pastor or elder in an unincorporated church and your church severely harms a member. Let's say a member has a child who is transgender and the church shames the child so much that they commit suicide, the church could be held liable. In a corporation, only the church assets are at risk - bank accounts, property, furniture, etc., but if the church is not incorporated, the liability extends to the people who run the organization - the pastor, elders, deacons and officers. So, a church that incorporates (although it's unheard of for a church not to incorporate) is essentially saying that they fear that their "God Ordained(tm)" leadership could harm someone severely enough that the assets of the church could not cover the damages. And, as a result, instead of fixing the system, they hide under the state's legal protections. It's another form of hypocrisy - on the one hand, they are "ordained servants whose actions could not possibly harm someone" and on the other hand, they are afraid to put their money where their mouth is.
Yes but the point is not that there is anything wrong with picking leaders for this that or any other project, the distinction is that it is a descriptive of character and a function not an “Office” “ruling over other believers.”
I don't think a big picture reading of the NT leads to that conclusion. The argument is a few cherry-picked verses taken out of context, and his argument that "office" doesn't occur in the NT is flat out wrong. I completely agree that the modern Evangelical church is paying lip service to qualifications, and grossly exaggerating their authority, but that doesn't necessitate throwing the whole thing out. We obey elders when what they say agrees with what we hear the Spirit say in our heart. That's not what the church is teaching, they are trying to claim that only elders can hear the Spirit and what we hear in our heart is subordinate to whatever they say. That is false. Paul warns that wolves will establish themselves in the church... where in the church do you think these wolves will want to be?
A qualification I should make. Leadership in the NT is much, much different than leadership in the OT. In the OT, we see the Spirit poured out only on select individuals who then speak by the authority of God. The normal people don't have that gift. Then at Pentecost, Peter speaks of Joel, who channels Moses. The Holy Spirit is now available to all people - in everyone's heart. So, we aren't mindless masses who would do stupid and evil stuff because we don't know any better. We know our right from our left, unlike many in the OT without revelation. So, leadership is no longer, "do what I say because I have the gift of the Spirit and you don't", but "this is what I hear the Spirit telling me, is that what the Spirit is telling you, too?" I think this is fundamentally the discrepancy between those who "equip the saints to do the ministry" and those who "equip the saints [for what?] and do the ministry". The latter are stuck in the old covenant and want that power over others.
RPCNA is at the pinnacle? Really? You see, there is no pinnacle. This is all manmade SIN!!!
*In the eyes of RPCNA members* the RP church is at the pinnacle, so which path you've taken down the mountain tells them what sin(s) you've chosen over purity. So, e.g. NAPARC churches are generally choosing Hymns/Praise Songs/Instruments over Psalms and generally abandoning the Christian Reconstruction political stance. Beyond NAPARC, you just tell someone what church you attend, and it might be something like, "Oh, THAT church. Don't they ordain women?" So, now you know that you're now a liberal feminist!
Sin is so deceptive. I’m more sad for them than you can know.
Women are not pastors, that’s just biblical, so there’s no danger of me joining any churches who ordain them. Women have so many things they’re called to do, and I think their roles God gave them are actually higher and better callings.
Our rebellious culture will find no place in me, and neither will manmade religion. If anyone asks where I’m headed next, I’ll tell them I’m going after Jesus.
"Women are not pastors, that’s just biblical" - I used to think that was true, but I don't now. The Bible is the word of God, but it has been interpreted by and for men since the beginning. The Bible says, "Deborah was a prophet", but I've heard pastors claim that a female prophet was somehow inferior to male prophets, or somehow God was unable to find a male who could be a prophet. "Deborah was the best MAN for the job!" The Bible also says that Philip's daughters were prophets.
That's important because when Paul lists gifts, he lists "first Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers" (1 Cor 12:27) and then says "earnestly desire the greater gifts" (1 Cor 12:31). So, let's play out the logic. Patriarchs acknowledge that women are called to be prophets. Okay, but then they have to dismiss the Bible one way (female prophets are inferior), or the other (prophets really aren't anything significant) The Bible does not dismiss female prophets like that, and the Bible (if we are to take one verse of Paul's with equal weight as others) says that prophecy is a greater gift than pastor.
Evangelicals prefer one clear verse on a subject over a context that might contradict, and I think that is not the correct approach. So, yes, there are verses that seem to indicate that women should not be pastors, okay. There are also verses that say "do not eat meat offered to idols". So, do Christians eat Middle Eastern food with a clear conscience? Well, yes, because for "meat sacrificed to idols" somehow Halal meat lovers decided that it was a command for a specific situation and not a universal statement. Paul hints at it. Are there other restrictions in the New Testament that are not hinted at but we acknowledge were temporary? Do we believe anointing with oil is a command? Washing feet?
The problem with that is it does not properly take into account the fact that corrupt church leaders over the centuries flat out deliberately mistranslated text of old manuscripts and that is what we find in much of our modern bibles. I am not saying the Bible is not reliable. I am saying Spirit filled Christians need to be wise in upstanding the the change of a word here or there can make a gigantic difference.
Take for example Hebrews 13:17>>
""This verse at first glance, seems to be loaded in favor of those who like to rule over God’s people, which is probably why it is perhaps the most favorite of “church leaders.” What is troubling is that it is often the verse cited in a supposed attempt to bolster "the institutional Church". Poor leaders drive the spotlight right back to themselves and love this verse. It incorporates all of their 3 favorite words together in one breath- Obey, Rule and Submit. But the verse in most of our bibles has been mistranslated.
The true meaning from the primary source scriptures is very different, but the reason behind the translators misguided substitution of an entirely different word to further their hierarchical/institutional agenda.
Here is Hebrews 13:17: Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
First off, notice this. The word “over,” is not in any way, shape, or form in the old manuscripts. This word was inserted in the text of Scripture by the translators.
Next, let’s examine the word “Obey” or “Obey them.” Anyone can check this out simply by using a Bible software program. When we go to the Strong's number for the word translated “obey,” we find the Greek word "peitho"- Strong's number 3982. It appears about 60 times. By far the most common translation for this Greek word in the King James Version is “persuade,” “persuaded,” “persuadeth,” etc.
Here is the first place this word appears in the New Testament:
Matthew 27:20 "But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus."
The chief priests and elders had no authority to command the people to ask for Barabbas or to destroy Jesus. But they were able to persuade the multitude to "ask" Pilate to do so. And so it is in Hebrews 13:17.
From Vine’s Expository Dictionary: “Peitho: to persuade, to win over; to be persuaded, to listen to, as in Acts 5:40 (passive voice). The obedience suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion."
From Thayer’s and Smith’s Greek Lexicon: “Peitho: To persuade; to induce one by words to believe; to make friends of, to win one's favor, gain one's good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one. To be persuaded, to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith in a thing; to believe."
There is a Greek word for “obey.” It is “hupakouo.” “Hupakouo” appears 21 times in the New Testament and is properly translated either as “obey,” “obedience,” or “obeyed.” Here is the first time this word appears in the New Testament:
Matthew 8:27 "And the men marveled saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!"
The Greek word “hupakouo” is never used in that way. Rather the Greek word“peitho” meaning “persuaded” is used instead.
Let’s look at some more verses with the word “peitho.”
“Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded (peitho) them to continue in the grace of God.” Acts 13:43
“And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing (dialegomai: discuss, to reason) and persuading (peitho) the things concerning the kingdom of God.” Acts 19:8
Here the apostle is “reasoning,” he’s having a discussion with the people in the synagogue. He is not commanding them; he is not beckoning them to look at his credentials and thereby render obedience. No. He reasoned with them, and they were persuaded. (peitho)
The apostle was not there to “magnify his office.” He was not there to build his church. He was not there to make a name for himself. He was there for one purpose only, and that was to hold up Christ to the people.
Do you want to see a picture of true leadership? Why was Paul so “persuasive?” Because Paul himself was absolutely and thoroughly persuaded. He knew altogether of what he spoke.
“…This Paul hath persuaded (peitho) and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands.” Acts 19:26
When standing before King Agrippa, the King said to Paul, “Almost thou persuadest (peitho) me to be a Christian.” Acts 26:28
“…To whom he (Paul) expounded the matter, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading (peitho) them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and from the prophets…” Acts 28:23
Here are some more Scriptures with the Greek word “peitho” meaning persuade or persuaded. Remember, we are still discussing Hebrews 13:17 where the word “obey” was substituted for the Greek word “peitho.”
“Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade (peitho) men…" 2 Corinthians 5:11
“For do I now persuade (peitho) men, or God; or do I seek to please men?” Galatians 1:10
“When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded (peitho) that in thee also.” 2 Timothy 1:5
“…For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded (peitho) that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” 2 Timothy 1:12
“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded (peitho) of them, and embraced them.” Hebrews 11:13
** meant> wise in understanding that the change of a word here or there can make a gigantic difference. These mistranslations have been used to abuse.
I think we are in vehement agreement. I see the need for leadership only in a few situations. There are physical and legal concerns - who owns and maintains church property, and how are decisions made about the church assets. There are concerns about what to do with abusers and false teachers. Is it okay if a wolf gets ousted by a democracy of congregants after years of abuse only to walk into another unaware church and set up camp? Definitely better than purposefully moving abusive pastors around, sure. Then there are decisions about what is okay or not to practice and teach. The "church" got together in Acts 15 to decide whether circumcision was a membership requirement. Over the next few centuries, what was considered orthodox Christianity was argued and reargued with the church coming together regularly to debate the consequences of doctrinal fads.
I think many aspects of church leadership were modeled by Jesus. When disciples left, he didn't chase after them and threaten them with eternal damnation. He ministered to those who were present, and those who followed him. However, his ministry had a fund and a treasurer. I think Western culture is too focused on hierarchy which is why our Bibles got mistranslated into hierarchical nonsense, but there is also something to the idea of recognizing giftedness and carefully listening to those who are older and wiser Christians (i.e. not necessarily a 25yo pastor who wants to wave over the flock).
This isn't about what rules men made- it's biblical, sir. i
..I wish you well.
Amen!
You mean "Biblical" as in, this is what I've been taught all my life and I don't want to consider anything else? I think only God gets to decide what is "Biblical". There are some things that are very clear in scripture, and some things not so much, and I think there is a lot in the Bible that has to be wrestled with for generations or millennia to get an understanding. 200 years ago, slavery was "Biblical". Just over 500 years ago, the Pope as "Vicar of Christ" was "Biblical". If it's worth stating that it's Biblical, as if you speak the words of God, it's worth explaining what we're missing to those who have struggled through both sides of the issue and come to a different conclusion.
I'm not objecting to ending the conversation. I'm objecting to using a trite, arrogant and presumptuous way to do so. Try, "we don't agree on this and I'm not going to debate it."
The teaching on the sacraments is one teaching not biblical, for example of something coming from Rome. People justify it with saying it's always existed in their reformed history, and it's in the WCF. I don't doubt the men had the motive to seriously reform the church, but we can't forget that's what they were doing. They were correcting the things they believed need to be corrected, but that doesn't mean they saw everything wrong that was going on. We're talking over 1,000 years of church history, and in a short amount of years a small group of men were trying to reform everything in that short space. Then there's our sin nature. i believe the RCC began the teachings on sacraments to control the church. And today, that's exactly what NAPARC churches are doing to the extreme with the sacraments. I have read the Bible over and again and cannot, even with trying to twist it in my own mind, find absolutely any support for the teaching on sacraments/means of grace (and everything those teachings give a pastor in the way of power). Just look at the key points the rpcna is so hardline about- they're things particularly used to control- and there's no grace about them at all. The reformers were men just like those in the rcc- they get things wrong, and then try to bind our consciences to them. but we won't stand before a session on judgment day. I beg everyone to read the Bible and know God...and don't do things against conscience! it's a mistake that leads to hardening of the heart and opens the door to more sin.
Are membership meetings recorded?
I don't know of any meetings that are streamed or recorded. Even Minutes of Synod are kept brief and don't often have the nature of discussion on topics. That may have changed since I left, but I'm doubtful because there was a lot of concern about the IRPC Synod trial last year being livestreamed even to an audience who had signed documents limiting their ability to discuss the proceedings.
Post a Comment