Archives For Church Polity

The Church is a messy place, and that means that not everything rolls out in the order that we might believe best fits with the patterns laid out in Scripture. Jesus is loving us into perfection, washing us with the water of His Word. But we’re not there yet, and in the mean time we have to be faithful when and where God has placed us.

So let me give you an example. I am told that in some communions it is common for children to begin taking the Lord’s Supper from a young age (or when parents deem appropriate) while withholding baptism until such an age that those in authority believe a true conversion has taken place.

Now in Presbyterian churches, it is frequently the opposite: babies are baptized and welcomed into the covenant and then later welcomed to the table when they are deemed old enough and/or mature enough to make a credible profession of faith in Jesus as Savior.

Now I happen to believe that both of these scenarios aren’t the best, though as far as I can tell, the latter Presbyterian practice at least has a good deal of historic precedent going for it. I have only become aware of the former practice in recent years and as far as I know hasn’t been a very widely held practice in the history of the church.

So in my ideal biblical world, I believe infants ought to be baptized and then when they begin sitting at their family dinner table at home and eating with their families, they ought to also be welcomed to the table of the Lord. In the course of things, this would probably mean that most kids would start taking communion around a year old, some earlier, maybe some a little later. Because the promises of the covenant are for us and for our children, believing those promises means naming our children in baptism into the family of Jesus and then teaching our children loyalty to that grace from their earliest days. It is absolutely necessary that they learn to trust and obey for themselves, but that is something that they learn by encouragement and discipline from faithful, believing parents. We ought to pray and trust that God’s promises are true for our children from an early age. This is not natural; it is supernatural. But God is often pleased to work His supernatural grace in little ones: for of such is the Kingdom of God.  Continue Reading…

Chestertonian America?

May 15, 2012 — 1 Comment

I just starting listening to Ross Douthat’s new book Bad Religion. He makes the fascinating suggestion towards the beginning that while most other western nations had official, established religions, America was founded on a certain openness to falsehood intentionally. But disestablishment was/is not necessarily in itself a capitulation to sects or secularism, though it certainly seems to have tended that way down to the present. What Douthat points out is that perhaps more than anything it reveals a certain confidence in the truth and the irresistible adventure of orthodoxy — in the grand Chestertonian sense. Perhaps it was not agnosticism or deism or some other vague pluralism that drove the founding fathers to design a nation in principle open to heresy. Perhaps it was the adventurous spirit of the orthodox faith itself and a certainty about the timid blandness of all pretenders which created a glad openness to the future simultaneously gripped by a confidence in the “faith once delivered to the saints.”

When you attend a worship service led throughout by men, that worship service is appropriately feminine. You don’t make a service feminine by putting women up front, you make a service feminine and submissive by doing what our husband has required of us.

-Douglas Wilson

Read the whole post here.

Charge to Deacons

September 19, 2011 — Leave a comment

Related to the sermon I preached yesterday on diaconal ministry, below is the charge that we give to new deacons when they are ordained at Trinity:

Charge to Deacons: (Name), you have received of the Lord Jesus to serve his church as a deacon, according to the word of the Apostles, that the elders and pastors may give themselves to the ministry of word and prayer. You are called to work with the pastors and elders as heralds of Christ’s kingdom. You are to proclaim the gospel in word and deed, to serve the community in which we live, bringing to the Church the needs and hopes of all the people. You are to work with your fellow members in searching out the poor and weak, the sick and lonely and those who are oppressed and powerless, reaching into the forgotten corners of the world that the love of God may be made visible. As a deacon, you are to share in the pastoral ministry of the Church and in leading God’s people in worship. You are to read the Word and bring the needs of the world before the Church in intercession. You are to labor to lead the lost to faith and bring them to baptism. You are called to assist in administering the sacraments, to distribute communion, and to minister to the sick and housebound. Therefore, we charge you before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom; lead the people of God in true religion, which the apostle James says is to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.  Be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, be servant unto all, that in losing your life you may indeed find it.  Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto you are also called; for those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

I really appreciated Driscoll’s take on spiritual gifts, particularly those that seem a bit more unusual or more miraculous than others. Driscoll notes that in the early days of the church, there were at least a few occasions where he believes demons were attacking the church plant. He recounts a few close calls in church where he had to do some fast thinking and preaching on his feet to deal with people apparently sent from the enemy or possessed by one of his spirits. Likewise, Driscoll talks about a number of strangely vivid dreams that were apparently prophetic in nature, and on at least one occasion the Spirit leading him to a woman whom he had never met before who was being abused by her boyfriend.

There were several things impressive and refreshing about Driscoll’s take on this stuff. First, he isn’t sensational at all. He comes off as the first skeptic, and because he’s skeptical of his own take on this kind of stuff, he readily gets advice, feedback and accountability from his fellow elders, pastors, and wife. Secondly, he says he grew up in the Roman Catholic church and was converted in college, and has never really been a “pentecostal” sort. He wasn’t out looking for something weird or supernatural, but in the last analysis concludes that these gifts are given by God to various people at various times in His Church and they should be received and used. So obviously, as he notes, he isn’t a “cessationist” although he is clear that he believes that the Bible is the final authority on everything, the canon is closed, and that these gifts should be exercised within and under the accountability of godly elders and friends.

When I was ordained and when I was interviewed for pastoral ministry at Trinity, I registered my stance on “cessationism” as strongly qualified. While I recognized that certain manifestations of miraculous gifts were unique to the first generation of apostles (writing the New Testament, for example, and perhaps some of the healing and prophetic gifts to confirm their authority to do so), I nevertheless was and continue to be uncomfortable insisting that all miraculous gifts have ceased from the Church. Church history is just too plum full of odd stories and miraculous interventions. Just read a missionary biography for instance. Lastly, this isn’t a central theme of the book by any stretch, but just as it assumes a subtle but authentic role in Driscoll’s story, it apparently remains a subtle but significant part of life at Mars Hill. And there’s something about that subtlety that seems, again, refreshing and biblical. The error of the “pentecostals” is to make these sign gifts the center of Christian life and experience, but the error of cessationists is to reject them entirely and pretend they don’t exist. We need a biblical balance between these two extremes.

People have and do abuse and misuse the gifts of the Spirit, and others lie and oppress and divide the body through gimmicks and shows. But this doesn’t mean that God isn’t free to do what He wants. He isn’t bound by our tidy little theological boxes. But the standard is always love, and this means that love sees the dangers and potential challenges of strange and miraculous interventions and love sees how and when to receive the gifts of God for the blessing of His Church. And because the love of Christ is always manifested in love for His Bride, authentic spiritual gifts will always delight in real accountability and submission to pastors and elders and the communion of the saints. People who view miraculous gifts as a license to disregard godly elders have already proven their gifts to be a sham.

You can read parts 1 and 2 here and here.

The Kingdom of Israel

February 27, 2010 — Leave a comment

When Yahweh makes covenant with Israel at Sinai, He inaugurates the kingdom of Israel. There, He says explicitly that He brought Israel out of Egypt in order that they might be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6). The “kingdom” does not begin with the anointing of Saul or David. The kingdom begins with the anointing of the whole people of Israel (Ex. 24), and the king is enthroned in their midst at the dedication of the Tabernacle (Ex. 40).

As Unqualified as a Lesbian

January 8, 2010 — 1 Comment

“There will be no reformation and no revival until those pastors who do not meet the child-rearing qualifications of their office step down, in repentance, from their office. Men who have a household in disarray are just as unqualified for church office as a lesbian is. It is way past time for conservative Christians to cease being outraged with the disobedience of others. Why do we remove the beam from their radical eye when we have a telephone pole in our own conservative eye?” – Douglas Wilson, Standing on the Promises, 167.

Bucer outlines the similarities and differences between the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdoms of this world. He says that one significant difference is that while kings of this world must have “representatives, vice-regents, and other authorities, and also have in their power men outstanding in prudence and wisdom, whose counsel they may use in their royal administration,” our King on the other hand, “is according to His promise, with us everywhere and every day,” and “He himself sees, attends to, and accomplishes whatever pertains to the salvation of his own.”

Bucer immediately recognizes that Christ does have ministers and a number of specific offices which are established for “his work of salvation,” but he says this is quite different than representatives in the ordinary, civil realm. Those representatives act with some degree of autonomy and must make decisions independent of their sovereign and prove their worth through their diligence, industry, and judgment. The work of Christ’s ministers on the other hand “is vain unless he himself gives the growth to their planting and watering… For they cannot even think that they of themselves contribute anything to the administration of this Kingdom…” (De Regno Christi, 179-180)

Martin Bucer to Obama

November 16, 2009 — 1 Comment

“It would seem fitting to write for Your Majesty a little about the fuller acceptance and reestablishment of the Kingdom of Christ in your realm. Thus it may be better understood how salutary and necessary it is both for Your Majesty and all classes of men in his realm, thoughtfully, consistently, carefully, and tenaciously to work toward this goal, that Christ’s Kingdom may as fully as possible be accepted and hold sway over us.” (Bucer, De Regno Christi, 175-176)

Toward the end of Ezekiel, the “prince” is described, the descendant of David who will rule Israel in accordance with the law of God. It’s interesting however that he is given particular liturgical duties. After the vision of the temple is described in detail, the prince is said to have rights to eat of the holy bread in the presence of the Lord (44:3). Likewise, the prince leads the congregation in offering sacrifices and celebrating the feasts and appointed seasons “to make atonement for the house of Israel” (45:16-17). The prince’s role seems to be as a representative of the house of Israel. He has not been merged into the priesthood, but as the representative of Israel, he is granted specific privileges which verge on priestly duties. Whereas the people must enter and exit through separate gates, the prince may come and go through the gate where the priests come and go (46:1-11).

The word here for “prince” is from the root word “lift up” [NASA]. The prince is literally “one who is lifted up.” He has been raised to a position of authority and responsibility. The same word is used to describe the 12 princes descended from Ishmael in Genesis, and later it is the word that describes the “leaders” that are appointed to represent and lead the 12 tribes of Israel (Numbers 2-3). Interestingly, a hint of Ezekiel’s prince is seen even as early as Numbers 7 where those previously appointed/named princes of the tribes offer sacrifices on behalf of their respective tribes. Likewise, it’s these princes of the tribes whose duties include dividing the land of promise (Num. 34).

Later, at the dedication of the temple, Solomon assembles these “princes of the fathers” (1 Kgs. 8:1), again suggesting that these princes play a role in Israel that is both judicial and liturgical. Of course leaders like Abraham, Samuel, David, and Solomon play similar roles. Melchizedek is both priest and king.

No huge or final conclusions here, but tentative ideas for further study: First, what sorts of direction does this provide for civil rulers today? The Magisterial Reformed instinct to see political rulers as having responsibility for the spiritual well being of their subjects, to defend the church, and assist the church in preserving and spreading the gospel, seems to fit with this framework. Magistrates really are deacons.

Second, we might turn the equation around and also apply this to church polity…. Or at least ask the questions: are these princes the equivalent of elders or bishops in the NT or something else? Again, the dual roles of liturgical leader/representative judge seem consonant with this OT pattern.

Last, since The Prince who sits on the throne of David is ultimately Jesus Christ who is both High Priest and King of Kings, Lord of all civil and liturgical affairs, it shouldn’t be so surprising that we would mimic Him in our lives. He has made us “priests and kings” to our God after all. And perhaps there is something mutually benefiting, mutually establishing in these roles as well that we’ve lost in the post-Enlightenment world.