Women in Ministry - Prof. Craig Keener

I thought this was a good lecture by Craig Keener explaining why women should be permitted to hold offices in the Church.

How to treat someone like a pagan or tax collector

In Matthew 18, Jesus has just taught the parable of the lost sheep and concludes it with an insight into God's purposes and desires: "In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish" (v.14).

At first glance it might seem that Jesus then suddenly changes subject and speaks about how to conduct church discipline and possible ex-communication of a persistent sinner within the church:

"If your brother or sister sins go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.^' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)

My argument is that this apparent "switch of subjects" is nothing of the sort. What Jesus is doing is explaining an important point for how we deal with the "lost sheep" who goes astray and, in one way or another, leaves the flock. We often think of the Parable of the Lost Sheep about bringing new people to faith in Christ, but it seems to me the parable is also about someone who was in the flock and then went astray.

The key aspect here is getting a right understanding of what it means to treat someone as "a pagan and a tax collector".

If we consider that "pagan" is practically synonymous with "Gentile" and "Tax Collector" is akin to a Jew who has turned against his own people to help the pagans, we may begin to see what is going on here.

A pagan is, in the Jewish terms of the day that Christ is adopting here, someone who is completely outside the sphere of the people of God. A tax collector is essentially a Jewish traitor, someone who grew up within the sphere of God's people, but who has turned against his own people to help the pagans.

I would argue that in modern church terms, these could be compared to someone with a completely unchurched background and someone who grew up in the church and then turned against it.

Contrary to how some people might view a verse like this, Jesus is not teaching that we are free to shun, ignore or even hate someone who persists in sin, fails to accept church discipline and is put out of fellowship. We can be certain of this because that's not how Jesus treated pagans and tax collectors. He loved them, befriended them and sought to bring them into the Kingdom of God.

What Jesus is really saying is that if someone fails to accept church discipline, we must treat them as if they were not one of Christ's sheep and then go and seek to bring the lost sheep back into the fold. Never are we to abandon them or have a "good riddance" attitude.

Once we remember that our attitude to someone who is not a believer—however they got to that place—is to love them, tell them of Jesus Christ and the gospel of forgiveness and restoration for sinners, we see that sometimes church discipline, followed by ongoing love and seeking to care for the lost sheep, is Christ's chosen method for making sure that none "of these little ones should perish."

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse
David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen
Bethany House Publishers 1991

I found this profoundly pastoral and thought-provoking book a very useful and emotional read. It is a book filled with the spirit of grace - true New Testament grace - and though I have never experienced the kind of spiritual abuse outlined in the book by many people, I found it of benefit in many ways. Reading it, I was saddened and angered that some so-called Christian leaders could act towards those in their care in such ways and justify the abuse through some kind of warped view that because they are in church leadership they are somehow above criticism for their actions.

In the course of the book, the authors deal with a number of problems that are all too real in many churches. Some of these are things like pressure to obey the leadership, not because it is biblical teaching, but because it is what the leaders say is to be done. Or the subtle message that to be a "good Christian" you must do A, B and C (which might be good things but not necessarily biblical commandments) or avoid doing X, Y and Z (which are nowhere forbidden in the Bible), thereby going beyond the Bible's requirements and ending up like clumsy pharisees. Or that to question the leadership is to question God. Such things rob the people of God who live under such leadership of their joy and turn Christian service into guilt-ridden chores. Let us not pretend that any church can face such dangers unless the leadership is on its guard and open to the correction of God's Word and the Holy Spirit themselves.

As I said, I have not experienced the kinds of excesses described in the book from my own pastors and elders, who have often been models of good leadership, but there must be few churches where some of the things described here exist from time to time at some kind of low grade level. Mostly it occurs as unintentional and well-meaning behaviour that is thoughtless, but no less difficult to deal with for those on the receiving end. It is when such behaviour becomes a pattern that it becomes serious enough to be called abuse that must be rooted out of the body of Christ like a cancer.

This book is highly recommended for Christians and ex-Christians who have left the church because of how they have been treated. It would also be read with profit by anyone in a leadership role within the church.

John Frame on Church Denominations

As I continue to grapple with the decisions made at May's General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, I was challenged by John Frame's Evangelical Reunion which I found online here.

Which evangelical in the Church of Scotland would not be heartened and challenged by some of what Frame has to say?

For example, in chapter three, "Towards a Post-denominational Ecclesiology," Frame draws sharp distinctions between the biblical concept of the Church and the man-made concept of the Denomination in four ways mentioned in the Nicene Creed.

1. The Church is one; denominations are many.
2. The Church is holy; denominations per se are not "set apart" by God as his people.
3. The Church is catholic or universal; denominations - even Rome - are restricted.
4. The Church is apostolic; denominations are only so in so far as they are built on the apostolic foundation.

He also maintains that only Christ's church and the officers he has called have authority over the people of God. Denominations only ever have some kind of derived authority in so far as they are congruent with the Church; they have no authority over God's people, nor are God's people called to be loyal to denominations, except where they act as God's Church - in obedience to God's word.

Similarly Frame doubts that modern denominations can claim the New Testament promises of all the gifts that are granted to the Church. This is evidenced by the fact that not all denominations are fully equipped in the gifts of the Holy Spirit: some have better teachers than others, some have better leadership than others, some have better evangelists than others. The Church on the other hand, has all the Spirit's gifts granted to it (Ephesians 4:12; Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12).

Frame then goes on to say a series of remarkable statements that made me raise my eyebrows, especially when read in light of recent events (I quote them in full):

We owe to our fellow Christians a special love ("love of the brethren," I Pet. 1:22; cf. I John 2:10, 3:10ff, 4:20f), a special care, which takes precedence over our duty to help unbelievers (Gal. 6:10). Is there a special love that we owe only to members of our own denominations and not to other Christians? To ask such a question is virtually to answer it negatively. But we often act as if it were true. Yes, there are legitimate obligations which we incur to our denominations in our membership vows. And we tend to form our closest friendships within our denominations, and friendships make legitimate claims on our affections. But the Christian Philadelphia, brotherly love, is for the church, not for one denomination above another.

These comparisons should indicate to us that there are great differences between the church and the denominations: differences in oneness, holiness, universality, apostolicity, power, foundation, authority, gifts, love. Yet it seems that in the ecclesiological literature and in our usual thinking and speaking we tend to equate the church with the denominations. When Jesus says that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the church, preachers routinely apply that text to the Free-Will Baptist Church or whatever denomination they may belong to. That is bad exegesis and bad preaching.

We need an ecclesiology that makes some careful distinctions between the attributes, powers and gifts of the church, on the one hand, and those of particular denominations, on the other. We should not any longer develop doctrines of the church which are written as if the schisms had never taken place, or as if we were all still living before 451.

When someone seeks to stir up in us passions of denominational loyalty, then, by pointing to Scripture's very high view of the church, we must raise questions. The church is a wonderful thing, deserving our deepest loyalty. It is that for which Jesus shed his own blood. But denominations are another thing altogether. I am not saying that we owe no loyalty to our denominations. I am saying that our loyalty to our denominations must be tempered by the understanding that these organizations are the result of sin, inadequate human substitutes for the God-given order of the one, true church. Somewhere in each of our hearts ought to be the conviction that denominations should work, not to their own glorification, but to their own extinction.

He concludes the chapter with these words, equally applicable in Scotland today as in the United States where Frame is writing from:

"We are in a post-denominational age, and we must apply the scriptures to the times in which we are living, not to a time that is long past. It is not easy to find the precise continuities and discontinuities between the church and the denominations. But we must be willing to take up that task."

The question for us in Scotland - not just in the Church of Scotland but in all the Churches in Scotland - is are we willing to see the Body of Christ is more, much more than our denomination, and see it not just in theory but in daily practice too?

The Elder and His Work by David Dickson

The Elder and His Work
by David Dickson
P & R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 2004

As someone ordained as an elder earlier this year, I found David Dickson's short book a tremendous encouragement, counsel and guide as I slowly worked my way through its chapters.

Originally this book was written by a Scottish elder in the 19th century. This new edition from P & R Publishing has been lightly edited by George Kennedy McFarland and Philip Graham Ryken (an elder and a minister from Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia) and given a new introduction and useful study guide with questions to consider at the end of each chapter.

This is not primarily a theological book. By that I mean that it is neither a detailed defence of Presbyterianism, nor an in-depth look at the biblical office of "ruling elder" (or "presbyter"). Rather it is a very practical and down-to-earth guide to actually being an elder and carrying out the duties of the eldership, and David Dickson, who served as Session Clerk at a church in Edinburgh for 33 years, proves a wise, trustworthy and practical guide.

The warm-hearted tone of the book is set at the very outset at the beginning of the first chapter, entitled "Importance of the Eldership," with this anecdote:

"A pious and useful rector in England once asked me, 'What objections have you Presbyterians to bishops?' 'We have no objections at all,' was my reply, 'on the contrary, we have in the Free Church alone 950 of them; but they are bishops of the same order as those ordained by Timothy, and doing the same work'."

The second chapter deals with the qualifications required in elders. It was a humbling and challenging experience to read this chapter. But it was also very useful. I will keep Dickson's advice in the back of my mind at future Session meetings: "Elders should be men of common sense, knowing when to speak and when to hold their tongues." And who could dispute the wisdom of his counsel: "Much of our usefulness will lie not only in knowing the wants, natural and spiritual, of our people, but in our having that heart-sympathy with them that will make us open our hearts to them, and will lead them to open their minds and hearts to us in return."

The book is peppered with many such wise words of advice and warning.

Further chapters deal with all aspects of being a ruling elder in a Presbyterian church:

• Duties of Elders
• The Elder and His District
• Elder's Visits
• Visiting the Sick
• Dealings with young people
• Giving people practical help when in need
• Session meetings
• Church discipline
• Encouraging and helping the minister

And so on.

The modern "study guide" questions are very important. I found them the key in trying to apply Dickson's timeless advice to our modern situations, considering they were written from the perspective of Victorian Scotland.

A very useful book all round, especially for very new elders learning the ropes, but also for very old elders in need of encouragement or reminding of what their role is in the life their congregations.