Green Baggins

I just finished reading (too long delayed, I know, I know) John Sittema’s wonderful book on the shepherd’s heart. One of the most interesting points he makes (and which convicted me no end) was his description of what elders’ meetings ought to model. He gave a description of a normal business-related model of session meetings (prayer, reading of minutes, old business, new business, reading of concept minutes, adjournment). He says that this should not be characteristic of most session meetings. Most session meetings should be about doing the ministry. His model involves training/study, pastoral consultation, and prayer (see pp. 233-234). Prayer, by the way, is not some adjunct to the ministry. Some people actually call prayer the work of ministry. Word and prayer constituted the work of the apostles (Acts 6). That’s why deacons became a reality. The elders did NOT want to do “business” of the church, if that meant administrative stuff. They wanted to devote themselves to word and prayer. Sittema argues that the session meetings should be a tool that helps equip the elders for the work of ministry. Most of the time, the meetings are seen AS the work of the ministry. Not so, according to Sittema! If some aspects of business are required to be examined, there should be a separate meeting for it. I was really excited, frankly, when I read this part. I am excited to start implementing this kind of idea.

What we need in churches today are elders that will be pastors, not business directors of the church that only define and govern the general direction of the church. There needs to be training in this area, and the session meetings are surely the place to do this.

The Funding Plan that was approved last year at General Assembly was defeated in the Presbytery voting. You can see the results of today’s voting here. I would hasten to add that votes in other Presbyteries still mean something, even if they will not play a part in swinging the tide. They send a further message to our denomination about how we wish to proceed. I believe in funding the AC. They do their job, and most things they do fairly well. They have some pretty essential functions within the PCA. There are other options out there for funding, some of which I hope will be discussed next GA.

In the two churches I serve, we are taking a small break from Exodus in order to take a look at elders and deacons. There are a fair number of misconceptions out there concerning these two offices. I would like to write a few words concerning these misconceptions, and how we are to view the offices of elder and deacon properly. This post will look at the ruling elder.

The qualifications for ruling elder are listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (a very similar list of qualifications is given in Titus 1:5-9). We can summarize these qualifications under three general headings: holiness, love, and wisdom.

Under holiness, we include the following: above reproach, husband of one wife, self-controlled, not addicted to wine, not greedy, and having a good reputation.

Under love, we may include hospitality, not a bully but gentle, and not quarrelsome.

Under wisdom, we include sensible, respectable, able teacher, one who manages his own household well, having his children under control, and not a new convert.

Some of these qualifications need a bit more explanation. Being above reproach always reminds me of the character in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress who has a robe of such spotless white that all the mud that the world throws at him cannot stick to his spotless robes, but always falls to the ground. An elder must wear the spotless white robe of Christ’s righteousness by faith.

The phrase “husband of one wife” has reference to the known practice of polygamy prevalent at the time. Hence, an elder whose wife has died and he has remarried is not barred from being an elder. Nor is a divorced and remarried elder necessarily barred from being an elder (all will depend on the circumstances of the divorce, and of his second wife, as to whether they are biblical reasons or not).

The phrase “able teacher” is also vitally important. Paul means not only that an elder must be able to teach, but that he must also be a learner. Someone who does not continually learn cannot possibly teach. Much mischief is done in churches where the elders are not grounded in solid Reformed teaching, and therefore they cannot recognize error in a pastor who comes along. Ruling elders must not take the pastor’s word for it. They must always compare the teaching of the pastor with the teaching of Scripture. And by the latter phrase I mean the whole counsel of God, which consists not only in what is expressly written down, but also what may by good and necessary consequence be deduced from Scripture. The analogy of faith is very important here. The elder of a Presbyterian or Reformed church must be very familiar with the creeds and confessions of his denomination.

Verses 4-5 compare the family of an elder with the church itself. The family is a mini-church. Not a whole church, mind you, since the body is made up of all members of the local body who have all the necessary gifts of the Holy Spirit given to them. This is why men must be leaders of the church, since they are to be the leaders in the household as well (see Ephesians 5). See this article for an excellent argument on this very topic.

Verse 6 shows the dangers of new converts in relation to positions of authority. I have heard many stories about new converts being thrust into positions of responsibility in the church, only to have terrible things happen as a result. New converts tend to have a very polarized view of situations. They do not tend to recognize how complicated the Christian life can be. As a result, they tend to be rash in coming to decisions, when patience and wisdom are required. The new convert can therefore be quite the bull in the china closet. I offer these few thoughts on the ruling elder in the hopes that they might prove useful to someone somewhere.

The Belhar Confession is a document originating in South Africa in the problems surrounding the racism of apartheid. The bulk of the confession has to do with a rejection of racism. Both the RCA and the CRC have this document on the table right now.

It is important to notice, then, that there is much in the Belhar that is commendable. Certainly, racism is a sin. I sincerely hope that those in favor of the Belhar will not accuse detractors of being racists. I have heard from some that this accusation has in fact happened. But Galatians 3:28 is already conclusive on this point of racism, clearly rejecting it. Nevertheless, there are a number of concerns that I have concerning this document.

But first, we must ask this question: what is confession of faith? I understand it to be a summary of the Christian faith. All the confessional documents to which I subscribe are accurate summaries of what the Scripture teaches on the central aspects of the Christian faith. Belhar does not do this. Racial reconciliation is therefore one of the vitally important consequences of the Gospel. However, the Gospel itself is reconciliation between God and man, the New Perspective on Paul notwithstanding. And if racial reconciliation is based on anything other than reconciliation between God and man, then it is a false reconciliation.

The document itself is vague in places. In all honesty, there are places in the document you could drive a truck through in terms of interpreting it. Just as one example, in section 2, under the second paragraph beginning “we believe,” and in the third section, the Belhar says “that this unity must become visible so that the world may believe that separation, enmity and hatred between people and groups is sin which Christ has already conquered, and accordingly that anything which threatens this unity may have no place in the church and must be resisted.” So, should the church separate itself from people living in unrepentant sin, as Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 6? This document says that separation of any kind is wrong. One could argue, I suppose, that the context means only racial separation. But that is precisely the point: this document is not clear on this point. The statement is not qualified. Confessions are limiting documents, not broadening documents. They should not be documents that increase possible interpretations. There will be more on that later.

In the extreme emphasis on unity, truth is de-emphasized. I’m not so sure that North American churches even have a proper view of love. If love is not based around the truth of God’s Word, then it is not true love. Neither can one say that God is love more than God is truth, for the same Bible that tells us that God is love also tells us that God is light, and that in Him there is no darkness at all. What I will do in the next several posts is to analyze the several portions of the confession, and why I think it is deficient.