Churchmanship is not Penmanship by Dean Turbeville

The Aquila Report has posted an excellent little article on the important, but much neglected, discipline of churchmanship. Rev. Dean Turbeville (ARP) makes a strong argument for this forgotten practice:

Churchmanship is also a crucible of the soul and battlefield for the kingdom. Paul’s language to the Galatians is almost war-like. And nobody’s light burned brighter for the maintenance of the visible church in faithfulness like Jesus Christ, of whom it was said, “zeal for the Lord’s House consumes him (John 2:17).”

 Rev. Turbeville goes on to list seven practical steps "toward obedient churchmanship," including:

Both large church officers and small church officers are presbyters and should contribute in this way. No false modesty or unbiblical inferiority complex should thwart the vows we all made at our ordination. And the same can be said for ordained seminary professors: it is your church too!

 and

Love your fellow presbyters as brothers, but be willing at any point to do the right thing for Christ and the church, even if your best friend thinks differently.

 The entire article is worth reading, and can be found here:  Churchmanship is not penmanship!

Grave Words from "Crossed Fingers"

Conservative Presbyterian denominations eventually become divided between Confessionalists and Church growth advocates. In our era, the Confessionalists regard the Church growth people as touchy-feelie sell-outs, while the Church growth people regard the Confessionalists as nit-picking, low-pension losers. Liturgically, the war between two extremes is a debate over the psalm book vs. the overhead projector. [North inserts a footnote: "Two centuries ago, the psalm book had no musical notation. Today, the overhead projector songs have no musical notation."]Each side wishes the other would just go away.

Once this division appears, the Confessionalists always lose control of the denomination. There are no known exceptions. The lure of large churches, large pensions, and assistants who do most of the marriage counseling prevails. The Church growth people concentrate on what they do best: growing their churches by whatever works. The Confessionalists concentrate on what they do best: overwhelming one-time visitors with unfamiliar theology. In Presbyterian government, votes count. The Church growth people eventually gain more votes. The Confessionalists then have three choices: (1) spend their lives being outvoted at General Assembly; (2) quit attending General Assembly; or (3) leave to form a new denomination, which will subsequently divide at least once--the Machen-McIntire phenomenon. In the two (or more) new groups, the cycle then begins anew.

The problem is point two of the biblical covenant model: representation/authority.
Presbyterians like to pretend that all votes are equal. This is an old Whig belief, and it has always flourished in the face of the facts. Twentieth-century modernists have known better: elite core groups provide direction for the voters. The elite core groups in Presbyterianism have not changed significantly for over four centuries: ordained men who possess advanced academic degrees issued by non-Presbyterian institutions ("doctors") -- John Calvin is the classic example -- and pastors of large congregations. Over the last century, the former have had a tendency to go liberal; the latter have had a tendency to go pietistic, i.e., non-controversial. To these two groups has been added a third in the twentieth century: senior bureaucrats in the permanent denominational boards. These three groups have become the operational models of success in Presbyterianism.

Young men seeking to enter the Presbyterian ministry must first go through the screening process controlled by the first group. The doctors, not the presbyteries, impose the sanctions. If the students survive, they are then forced to seek jobs. Who has jobs to offer? Hardly anyone; we are talking about Presbyterians, not Baptists. But if there are any jobs available, they will be offered by the remaining two elite groups: pastors of large congregations and senior bureaucrats. The small-congregation Confessional preachers have only this to say: "Silver and gold have we none, and not many Federal Reserve Notes, either." Men respond to positive sanctions. They can see who has positive sanctions to offer. They can also see who doesn't.

Gary North, Crossed Fingers: How the Liberal Captured the Presbyterian Church (Appendix B: How to Immunize Presbyterianism)

Latest Artiles at ARPTalk: Not for the Weak of Stomach

If you want to read something that can potentially make you sick, I point you to the latest articles posted at ARPTalk. The first, reporting on the latest actions of First Presbytery in regard to the issue of whether or not to try Parker Young for suing the church, can be found here. It gives much more detail than the story from The Aquila Report from a few days ago.

The second, which reports on the actions (or lack thereof) of Second Presbytery in regard to bringing charges against Jay Hering, who attempted to sue the ARP, can be read here. I warn you though, this piece could make those a weak constitution a bit quesy. The logic behind the actions of Second Presbytery are quite disgusting. I also note the involvement of Randy Ruble and Neely Gaston in the actions of Second Presbytery. Nothing like your former bosses (who would have been directly affected by a new Board of Erskine, which Hering's non-suit was attempting stop from coming into power) covering for you, right?

Robert's Rules of Order: Challenging the Chair

"It has been more important institutionally to have gained a mastery of Robert's Rules of Order...than either the Bible or the Westminster Confession."

So wrote Gary North in Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church. In light of this, I occasionally will offer summary or tip on a particular parliamentary procedure taken from Robert's Rules of Order (see my previous entry on "To Adjourn"). Ruling Elders need to be familiar with these rules and be able to use them effectively.

Today, I bring to your attention a procedure that is not used very often, but which is very important: Challenging the Chair.

It is the Moderator's job to determine when a certain action is "out of order"; however, the Moderator's decision is not final. It can be appealed. If the Moderator rules something out of order, any member of the body can immediately rise and state "Mr. Moderator, I appeal from the decision of the chair," regardless of who has the floor. An important point to note is that this must be done immediately, because if any other business transpires between the Moderator's ruling (that something is out of order) and the challenge, the challenge can no longer be made.

Once the challenge is made and seconded, the question is put to the body: "Shall the decision of the chair [Moderator] be sustained?" The body then votes; a "yes" will be in favor of the Moderator's ruling, a "no" will be against the Moderator ruling.

The most important thing to remember though, is that if a motion/action/speech/etc. is ruled out of order by the Moderator, that decision is not final, and may be appealed.

For another description of Challenging the Chair, see: Simplified Rules of Order: Challenging the Chair.

But You're Just a Ruling Elder!

Has anyone ever told you this? "You're just a Ruling Elder." Perhaps not with those exact words. Perhaps they phrased it more delicately (as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure they would have). Maybe it wasn't phrased using the second person singular, but the third person plural: "Scholars disagree with that point of view." Of course, "that point of view" is the one you are advocating. Or perhaps it was said in the first person: "I, Dr. Smith, have studied these ancient cultures for so many years, that surely we can't so easily discount my advice." As a matter of fact, perhaps this sort of disdain for Ruling Elders was phrased so elegantly and so subtly that you bought into it. You thought to yourself, "Maybe Dr. Jones/scholars/this guy in front of me with an advanced theology degree knows better than I do." Perhaps this sort of speech was used to counter a point you made or perhaps it was used to prevent you from even speaking at all. A preemptive strike in the debate, if you will.

Ruling Elders, I write to encourage you to see through this sort of speech. And I hope to give some antidote to these kinds of attacks.

First, I want to address these sorts of attacks. I say attacks, because that's what they are. It doesn't sound like one, though, does it? Stating "Dr. Jones has done post-doc work in Ancient Mesopotamian cultures and as a result of years of study has reached conclusion X." does not sound the same as saying "Sit down and shut up, stupid." But in reality that is what is being said. By saying Dr. Jones has years of knowledge that contradicts your point of view, what is being implied is that you do not have years of knowledge, nor a PhD to back up your point of view. You don't know as much as Dr. Jones, therefore your point is invalid, therefore you should not be speaking. Or, to put it another way: "Sit down and shut up, stupid!" Have you encountered this line of reasoning before? I have. And now that I have encountered it, I am all the more able to see it the next time I come into contact with it.

Second, the solution to these attacks. The best solution is Scripture. Our Lord was no respecter of persons (Matt. 22:16), but all too often, we are. We shouldn't be. Jesus also told us not to call any man "teacher" (Matt 23:10), but all too often we call men "doctor" (meaning "teacher") and hold them in high regard and value their words more because of this title. We shouldn't. We should, though, remember that first great church council in Jerusalem, where apostles and elders came together, as equals, to settle matters pertaining to the faith (Acts 15:6). If the early church did not regard the Apostles as more able to settle this matter than the elders, and if the Apostles did not take such a high view of themselves that they sought to belittle the elders, why then do we uphold doctors of theology (or masters of divinity) as better able to instruct us than an "ordinary" Ruling Elder?

The reason is a low view of Scripture. "A low view of Scripture," you may ask yourself, "how do you reach that conclusion?" Here is how: when we honor the view of a man with a PhD or even an MDiv who has read Calvin in the original Latin or translated Turretin himself or held the original Dead Sea Scrolls in his hands, more than the elder who simply quotes Scripture (properly exegeted), we reveal that our view of Scripture is less than that of these artifacts. After all, he held the original Dead Sea Scrolls! You just can't argue with that! I mean, any sucker can quote 1 John, but this man is a scholar. You're just a Ruling Elder! Sit down and shut up, stupid.

This approach to questions of doctrine is evil, subtle, and deceitful. Those are attributes of Satan, not of Christ's undershepherds (1 John 3:8; Gen. 3:1; John 8:44). What this view does is dismiss Scripture in favor of man's opinion. And pay close attention, because although the men who do this may reference or quote Scripture, their final authority will not be Scripture. If their final authority were the Bible, they would be humble, deferring to others and listening to you, Ruling Elder, because you are an Elder in the Church of God, and that is the highest office one can be called to.

Robert's Rules of Order: To Adjourn

Gary North wrote: "It has been more important institutionally to have gained a mastery of Robert's Rules of Order (1876)--originally, an obscure self-published book--than either the Bible or the Westminster Confession." (Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church). North is no fan of Robert's Rules of Order, and why should he be? It's a bureaucrat's best friend, with rules about rules about rules. Sadly, though, it has been a part of Presbyterian politics since it was first published. To that end, I encourage all Ruling Elders to be familiar with it (to that end, this is a handy chart to print and carry with you to your next Presbytery meeting).

With that in mind, I hope to occasionally post a section from Robert's Rules of Order so Ruling Elders can learn it and put it to use. This first installment is one of the most important motions: "To Adjourn" (taken from here)

17. To Adjourn. The motion to adjourn (when unqualified) is always a privileged motion except when, for lack of provision for a future meeting, as in a mass meeting, or at the last meeting of a convention, its effect, if adopted, would be to dissolve the assembly permanently. In any organized society holding several regular meetings during the year, it is, when unqualified, always a privileged motion. When not privileged it is treated as any other main motion, being debatable and amendable, etc.

The privileged motion to adjourn takes precedence of all others, except the privileged motion "to fix the time to which to adjourn," to which it yields. It is not debatable, nor can it be amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it; nor can a vote on it be reconsidered. It may be withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn can be repeated if there has been any intervening business, though it is simply progress in debate. The assembly may decline to adjourn in order to hear one speech or to take one vote, and therefore it must have the privilege of renewing the motion to adjourn when there has been any progress in business or debate. But this high privilege is liable to abuse to the annoyance of the assembly, if the chair does not prevent it by refusing to entertain the motion when evidently made for obstructive purposes, as when the assembly has just voted it down, and nothing has occurred since to show the possibility of the assembly's wishing to adjourn.

The motion to adjourn, like every other motion, cannot be made except by a member who has the floor. When made by one who has not risen and addressed the chair and been recognized, it can be entertained only by general consent. It cannot be made when the assembly is engaged in voting, or verifying the vote, but is in order after the vote has been taken by ballot before it has been announced. In such case the ballot vote should be announced as soon as business is resumed. Where much time will be consumed in counting ballots the assembly may adjourn, having previously appointed a time for the next meeting, or, still better, may take a recess as explained in the next section. No appeal, or question of order, or inquiry, should be entertained after the motion to adjourn has been made, unless it is of such a nature that its decision is necessary before an adjournment, or unless the assembly refuses to adjourn, when it would be in order.

Before putting the motion to adjourn, the chair, in most organizations, should be sure that no important matters have been overlooked. If there are announcements to be made they should be attended to before taking the vote, or at least, before announcing it. If there is something requiring action before adjournment, the fact should be stated and the mover requested to withdraw his motion to adjourn. The fact that the motion to adjourn is undebatable does not prevent the assembly's being informed of business requiring attention before adjournment. Members should not leave their seats until the chair has declared the assembly adjourned.

An adjournment sine die -- that is, without day -- closes the session and if there is no provision for convening the assembly again, of course the adjournment dissolves the assembly. But, if any provision has been made whereby another meeting may be held, its effect is simply to close the session. In an assembly, as a convention, which meets regularly only once during its life, but whose by-laws provide for calling special meetings, an adjournment sine die means only the ending of the regular session of the convention, which, however, may be reconvened as provided in the by-laws. If called to meet again the assembly meets as a body already organized.

When the motion to adjourn is qualified in any way, or when its effect is to dissolve the assembly without any provision being made for holding another meeting of the assembly, it loses its privilege and is a main motion, debatable and amendable and subject to having applied to it any of the subsidiary motions.

In committees where no provision has been made for future meetings, an adjournment is always at the call of the chair unless otherwise specified. When a special committee, or the committee of the whole, has completed the business referred to it, instead of adjourning, it rises and reports, which is equivalent to adjournment without day.

The Effect upon Unfinished Business of an adjournment, unless the assembly has adopted rules to the contrary, is as follows:

(a) When the adjournment does not close the session, the business interrupted by it is the first in order after the reading of the minutes at the next meeting, and is treated the same as if there had been no adjournment, an adjourned meeting being legally the continuation of the meeting of which it is an adjournment.

(b) When the adjournment closes a session in an assembly having regular sessions as often as quarterly, the unfinished business should be taken up, just where it was interrupted at the next succeeding session previous to new business; provided that, in a body elected, either wholly or in part, for a definite time (as a board of directors one-third of whom are elected annually), unfinished business falls to the ground with the expiration of the term for which the board, or any part of it, was elected.

(c) When the adjournment closes a session in an assembly which does not meet as often as quarterly, or when the assembly is an elective body, and this session ends the term of a portion of the members, the adjournment puts an end to all business unfinished at the close of the session. The business may be introduced at the next session, the same as if it had never been before the assembly.

Ruling Elders in the ARP: Where are you?

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church has called a special meeting of their Synod to address the report of a commission investigating Erskine College and Seminary. The Synod is supposed to meet March 2-3. In order for this called meeting to happen, though, there needs to be a quorum of Teaching Elders and a quorum of Ruling Elders (ARP Form of Government, 13.C.5). The quorum of Teaching Elders has been reached; however, there are not yet enough Ruling Elders to make a quorum, which means this Called meeting of Synod may not happen.

Ruling Elders: I must impress upon you the importance of attending this called meeting of Synod. The issues raised by the Erskine Commission are of vital importance to the future of our denomination. If we cannot keep our Seminary in check, either we will lose it or it will continue to operate as it has for years: as an authority unto itself. Ruling Elders: rule!

I understand the difficulties associated with traveling to North Carolina, the need to take time off from work, to arrange accommodations for your families, and all the other various reasons that could be used as an excuse to not go to this Called meeting of Synod. However, remember your calling: "Ruling elders...together with the ministers...exercise government and discipline. They oversee the spiritual interests both of the particular congregation and of the Church generally when appointed to represent the congregation in higher courts. In all the courts of the Church ruling elders possess the same authority and the same eligibility to office as ministers...they are to seek the will of God in all church court decisions." (ARP Form of Government, 7.B.1-2.)

REs and Heresy

TE Wes White has a new post at his blog addressing the question "Are Teaching Elders More Qualified to Deal with FV [Federal Vision] than Ruling Elders?" It is worth reading. He makes some great points, such as:

1. TEs are no more qualified than REs to deal with heresy (specifically, Federal Vision). This is especially true when TEs don't do their homework and read up on issues.

2. TEs tend to run in cliques (or at least, have a tendency to do so), based on the fact that many TEs may have attended the same seminary, gone through the same ordination/examination process, have to face similar issues in their churches (like pesky REs getting in their way).

3. REs have lead the charge against FV and have been some of the most determined opponents of it.

4. REs have to sit under the teaching of TEs who do hold to heresy, so there is a personal interest in seeing doctrinal issues dealt with.

In light of these things, I ask you, Ruling Elders: have you read through your denomination's reports on Federal Vision? Do you read your denomination's Standards? Are you familiar with Robert's Rule of Order? If the answer to any of those is "no" then you've got some work to do!

Election of Ruling Elders in the ARP

The ARP Form of Government [link to PDF], 8.C.2.b reads:

"A congregational meeting may be held to select nominees [for Ruling Elders and/or Deacons] by ballot. A list of names of all persons eligible for nomination shall be provided, and at least twice the number of persons to be elected shall be nominated. The nominees shall be conferred with privately by the session, or Presbytery in the case of a new congregation, as to their qualifications and willingness to serve before being placed before the congregation for election. Any nominee receiving a majority of votes cast shall be declared elected." (emphasis added).

As I've been reading through the Form of Government of the ARP, several things have jumped out at me as, shall we say, curious. This is one of them. When a congregation is to elect new Ruling Elders, the ballot must contain twice as many names as REs to be elected. What that means is, if men in a congregation have discerned a call to the office of Ruling Elder and if a session, through much prayer and examination, has determined that these men are qualified to serve as REs, they are to nominate these men and then have half of them not be elected. How is this biblical? Half of the men who are otherwise qualified and deemed worthy by the session are told they cannot serve in the office to which God has called them.

My guess is that, at some point in ARP history, there was an abuse of the process for electing REs and this was the solution, but that's just my guess. I certainly cannot find a biblical rationale for this section of the Form of Government.