Posts

Posted on

Old School Presbyterian Church Unity in a Denominational World

How should we pursue Christian love and unity in a world with so many denominations?

Charles Hodge gives a very helpful answer in his essay “Principles of Church Union,” found in The Church and Its Polity. His approach is neither sectarian nor sentimental. He recognizes that divisions among Christians are an evil. But he also recognizes that forced unity, where real differences are simply ignored or suppressed, is not true unity at all.

Hodge begins with the ideal. Christians in a particular place should ordinarily gather together with the other Christians around them to form churches. Those churches should then unite with other churches in their region and beyond. In other words, the visible church should manifest, as much as possible, the unity that Christians already have in Christ.

But that is not how things have actually developed. Differences of opinion, background, doctrine, and government have divided Christians into many communions. As Hodge puts it, “Thus, the evil has gone on increasing until the Church is split into sects and independent communions almost without number” (Church Polity, 95).

That sentence is important. Hodge does not treat denominational division as ideal. He calls it an evil.

However, it is not the worst evil. He adds, “Nevertheless, the existence of such divisions is the less of two evils. When men differ, it is better to avow their diversity of opinion or faith, than to pretend to agree, or to force discordant elements into a formal uncongenial union” (ibid.).

That is the right balance. Division is not good. But pretending to agree when we do not agree is not good either. Formal union without real unity is not the answer.

So, what should we do?

First, we should recognize true Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ, even when they belong to different communions. Hodge says, “It is a great offence against Christian charity, and a direct violation of the command of Christ, to refuse to receive as our brethren those whom Christ receives as his disciples. . . . Those who refuse to recognize Christians as Christians, sin against Christ and commit an offence which is severely denounced in the word of God” (ibid., 97).

That is strong language. Hodge believed doctrinal differences mattered. He was not indifferent to truth. But he also believed that refusing to acknowledge real Christians as Christians is itself a serious sin.

Second, this recognition applies not only to individual Christians but also to churches. Hodge writes, “The same principle applies to Churches. To refuse to recognize as a Church of Christ any body of associated believers united for the purposes of worship and discipline, can be justified only on the ground that some particular form of organization has by Divine authority been made essential to the existence of the Church. And if essential to the existence of the Church, it must be essential to the existence of piety and to the presence and operations of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

This is a crucial point. Presbyterians may believe Presbyterian church government is biblical. I do. But that does not mean we should deny that Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, or other evangelical churches are true churches of Christ. To say that would require us to say that our particular form of government is essential to the very existence of the church. Hodge rightly refuses to go there.

Third, Christians from different denominations should be willing, where possible, to commune together in worship and sacraments. Our divisions should not make us act as if Christ has not received those whom He has received.

Fourth, denominations should recognize one another’s discipline. If another true church has acted in a legitimate matter of discipline, we should not treat that action as meaningless simply because it came from another communion.

Fifth, we should recognize one another’s ordination, while still respecting our own denominational order. Hodge explains, “Presbyterians may recognize Methodist preachers as ministers of the gospel, and welcome them to their pulpits, but they cannot be expected to receive the[m] into their own body or make them pastors of their own Churches. The same of course may be said of Methodists in regard to Presbyterians” (ibid., 99).

This is very helpful. Recognition does not mean erasing all boundaries. Presbyterians can recognize that a Methodist minister is truly a minister of the gospel without making him a Presbyterian pastor. Charity and order are not enemies.

Sixth, when we think about planting churches or expanding the work of the gospel, we should not think only in terms of our own denomination. We should consider what churches already exist in a place and whether the broader cause of Christ is already being served. We are not the only ones carrying out the Great Commission.

Finally, Hodge says that denominations should actively cultivate peace. “Finally, it is obviously the duty of different denominations to cultivate peace. They should avoid all the causes of alienation and ill-feeling, and do everything in their power to promote Christian love and fellowship. It is their duty, indeed, to maintain what they believe to be the truth, and endeavour to promote unity of faith; but they are bound to abstain from mere rivalry and sectarian conflicts” (ibid., 100).

That may be the most needed word of all.

We should maintain what we believe to be true. We should seek greater unity in the faith. We should not act as if doctrine does not matter. But we should also avoid rivalry, needless conflict, party spirit, and the refusal to rejoice in the work of Christ outside our own communion.

That is the kind of catholicity we need: not a vague unity that ignores truth, and not a narrow sectarianism that refuses to recognize the grace of God beyond our own borders.

Hodge’s whole essay is worth reading. So is the larger book, The Church and Its Polity. His principles provide a wise path for Christians who want to be faithful to their convictions while also obeying Christ’s command to love all those who belong to Him.

Posted on

An Essential Summary of Our Book of Church Order (Presbyterian Church in America)

Our denomination has a book that governs the operation of our church on all levels. Personally, I think it is probably too long and complicated, even though I agree with the principles in it. I think we would be better served to simply have something like the following. This is a summary of our Book of Church Order that I use to give a simple explanation of what I believe are all the key points of the book.

The System of Government of the Church

Church Government:

  1. Jesus Christ is the King and Head of the Church. He defines the doctrine, government, discipline, worship, and ethics of the Church.
  2. The visible church consists of all who profess faith in Christ, together with their children.
  3. Believers are ordinarily called to belong to particular local churches.
  4. A local church is a community of professing believers and their children who gather for worship, mutual edification, pastoral oversight, and the advancement of the gospel.
  5. The power of the church is spiritual, ministerial, and declarative: the church may proclaim, administer, and enforce the law of Christ, but it may not bind the conscience apart from Scripture.
  6. The official leadership of the church consists of elders and deacons.
  7. Elders govern, teach, oversee, and shepherd the church. Some elders are called and trained especially for the ministry of Word and Sacrament and are called teaching elders or ministers.
  8. Deacons serve the church by caring for those in need, encouraging liberality, receiving and distributing gifts, and caring for the property of the congregation under the oversight of the Session.
  9. Churches should live in connection with one another for mutual accountability, common government, and shared ministry. In Presbyterian government, this connection is expressed regionally in presbyteries and nationally in the General Assembly.
  10. Elders govern the church jointly in courts. These courts are the Session for the local church, the Presbytery for the regional church, and the General Assembly for the whole denomination.
  11. Church courts are not independent tribunals but are related to one another, with lower courts subject to the review and control of higher courts.
  12. No one may simply take office in the church by his own choosing; officers must be lawfully called, examined, elected or approved, ordained, and installed.
  13. Ordination is the solemn setting apart of a qualified man to church office by prayer and the laying on of hands.
  14. Pastors are called by congregations and examined, ordained, and installed by presbyteries; ruling elders and deacons are elected by congregations and examined, ordained, and installed by Sessions.
  15. The official relationship between a pastor and a congregation may be dissolved only through the proper action of the congregation and Presbytery.
  16. The congregation does not govern as a church court, but it exercises important powers, especially in electing officers, calling pastors, approving major property matters, and giving counsel or consent where the BCO requires it.

Church Discipline:

  1. The purpose of discipline is to glorify God, preserve the purity and peace of the church, build up the congregation, and seek the spiritual good of the person under discipline.
  2. Discipline includes both the church’s general pastoral oversight of its members and the narrower judicial process used when an offense must be formally adjudicated.
  3. An offense is something in the doctrine or practice of a church member that is contrary to the Word of God and can be proved from Scripture.
  4. The governing body with jurisdiction over a member or minister may inquire into any matter that could bring scandal or injury to the church.
  5. Individuals may seek to resolve issues through church courts, but they must ordinarily first seek to win their brother.
  6. When a matter cannot be resolved informally, the governing body may enter judicial process through careful inquiry, charges, evidence, and judgment.
  7. When formal charges are brought, the accused must answer the charge; if he confesses guilt, the court may proceed to judgment and impose an appropriate censure, but if he denies guilt, the court must conduct a trial.
  8. A trial ordinarily proceeds by reading the charge, hearing the accused’s answer, examining the witnesses for both sides, hearing the parties’ arguments, deliberating, voting, announcing the verdict, and entering judgment.
  9. If the court finds the person guilty, it may impose a censure: admonition, suspension from the Lord’s Supper, suspension from office, deposition from office, or excommunication.
  10. If someone comes and confesses, the court may impose a censure, but it must be clear that the person intends to confess for that judicial purpose.
  11. Some matters may be handled without process, such as certain removals from office, transfers, withdrawals, or erasures from the roll, but these are still acts of pastoral discipline.
  12. If someone attempts to remove himself from the church, the court should warn him of the spiritual consequences and seek to dissuade him; in some cases, the court may retain jurisdiction and proceed.
  13. The proceedings of lower courts come under higher courts by review and control, reference, appeal, and complaint.
  14. A complaint challenges an act or decision of a court, but once judicial process has begun, objections in the case are preserved for appeal rather than handled by complaint.
  15. If a complaint or appeal is rejected or decided adversely, the matter may be carried to the next higher court according to the BCO.
Posted on

Understanding God’s Compassion for All . . . And Our Own

One of the most persistent questions in theology is this: how do we bring together God’s sincere compassion for all sinners and His decision to save only some of them?

Scripture presents this to us in at least three ways. First, there are God’s indiscriminate offers of mercy to all. Second, there are declarations of His love for the world, such as John 3:16. Third, there are passages that speak of God’s compassion toward those who are never saved. These seem to pull in different directions. Either God does not truly have compassion for all, or He has compassion but cannot act on it.

This is not a minor difficulty. As A. A. Hodge noted, it is one of the strongest points pressed by Arminians against Calvinists. Robert Lewis Dabney also recognized that Calvinists have often struggled here. Because of that, he believed that this issue deserved another look.

Nor is this just a theoretical issue. When we look at any person and have compassion, we may ask, “Does God stand behind this compassion?”

Dabney offered a solution to this perplexing question in his article, “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy: As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity.” But his real contribution, I would suggest, lies deeper than he himself fully realized. He did not so much introduce a new principle as expose one already at work—and show how it ought to be applied more consistently.

The Problem: Collapsing Affection into Action
The difficulty arises from an assumption that feels intuitive but is false:

If an affection is real, one must act on it.

If God truly has compassion, then He must relieve the misery. If He does not relieve it, then compassion must not be there.

This assumption drives both sides:

  • The Arminian says: if God has compassion, He must act—so something must limit His action.
  • Some Calvinists reply: since God does not act, the compassion must not exist in that case.

Both accept the same premise. Both are mistaken.

What is needed is not a new theological distinction, but a clearer understanding of the structure of rational agency itself. Continue reading “Understanding God’s Compassion for All . . . And Our Own”

Posted on

Leadership That Actually Moves People Forward

Most of us default to a kind of leadership that doesn’t really work.

We see something we don’t like in people—a child, a team, a church—and we react. We correct, criticize, withdraw, or push harder. It feels like leadership because we are doing something. But it often produces about as much growth as a sixth-grade teacher hitting a student for not knowing a geometry answer. It may express frustration, but it does not create understanding or movement.

This is leadership by reaction. It is common, instinctive, and largely ineffective.

There is a better way.

Leadership Begins with Vision
Effective leadership begins not with what is wrong, but with a clear sense of what could and should be. It asks: where are we going?

Without that, everything else is noise. You may push people, but you are not leading them anywhere.

Consider the contrast. You can react to kids spending too much time on screens, or you can envision a better alternative and work toward it. You can react to injustice, or you can articulate a vision of a different kind of community and pursue it.

This is what distinguishes reactive leadership from visionary leadership. The latter begins with clarity about the destination and then works backward to the means.

If someone said to you, “I want to become exactly what you think I should be—what does that look like?”, could you answer? If not, you are not ready to lead them there.

Clarity requires work. Reflection. Conversation. Prayer. Writing. Thinking. But without it, leadership collapses into reaction.

Vision Reveals the Path
Once the destination is clear, the path begins to emerge.

You cannot meaningfully answer the question “How do we get there?” until you can answer “Where is there?”

When you do, practical steps start to take shape. Continue reading “Leadership That Actually Moves People Forward”

Posted on

Our Part & God’s Part in Our Sanctification/Transformation

Power to Change
How do we become what God has made us to become? Can we become what we are supposed to become? Can we fulfill our potential? Can we become joyful, content, and just people instead of angry, frustrated, and selfish people?

The Christian faith answers honestly: on our own, we cannot. Left to ourselves, we are stuck. But it also gives us remarkable hope. The same power by which God raised Jesus from the dead is at work in us, enabling us to become what God has called us to be.

This raises an obvious question. If that is true, why are so many Christians still angry, anxious, materialistic, and even mean? Continue reading “Our Part & God’s Part in Our Sanctification/Transformation”

Proudly powered by WordPress