One of the things I've come to see over the last three years is that some of the things that I didn't think mattered that much, really really do matter.
But all of this is not to say that everything matters to exactly the same degree or at the same time. David Field is passionate and persuasive about covenant infant baptism, but here he is explaining his personal experience of fellowship in a baptist church and the baptism of his own children.
It's a reminder to people like me (who arrived at college fairly convinced paedobaptists, and are now really really convinced and keen to advocate and teach it for the sake of Christ) of the need for patience, gentleness, respect, love and never being more exclusive than Christ is. As I finish semester 1 of my final year, and really do start to look forward (in both senses of the phrase) to the next stage, it seems extremely important to remember that.
Also available at Dr Field's blog are the essay questions I'll be selecting from for semester 2's Puritans module.
Showing posts with label Church Order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church Order. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2008
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Are paedobaptists unrepentant?
Some words of sanity on a difficult issue where Christians often disagree can be found here. As an unrepentant paedobaptist I welcome the stance taken by John Piper and co., even if others think it fuzzy.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Confusion at the Evangelical Centre
Bishop of Durham Tom Wright has employed his considerable intellect and skill as a rhetorician in a passionate (almost vitiriolic?) critique of the covenant mentioned in a previous post (see here). Wright's comments can be found HERE.
He makes some valid points in many respects, comments which must sting coming from a self-confessed evangelical. He may well be right about the political inadequacy and bad-timing of the covenant, I'm not sure. He also exposes the fact that the model of ecclesiology assumed in the covenant is not exactly in line with traditional Anglican thought as he sees it. IMHO these valid points he makes probably demonstrate the ultimate untenability of evangelicals remaining within the CofE as it currently stands, rather than strengthening the case for Wright's methodology for achieving reform.
More worryingly, the Bishop seems to 'buy' the popular representation of the type of evangelicals he is criticising. At the same time he seems to sincerely believe that the majority of the bishops in this country are orthodox and that things are in a generally decent condition in the CofE. From my limited experience, I certainly do not recognise the CofE Wright seems to be living in.
This more positive picture relies partly on a dogged belief that whilst the paper definitions of the denomination remain orthodox all is relatively well. This, I would contend, is position hard to maintain in the face of long-term ignorance of and deviation from these paper definitions.
Thus, one of the major differences between Tom Wright's approach and those of his opponents seems to be Wright's faith in the structures to produce reform and renewal. Of course this is no surprise since he is a Bishop and who'd want to be a Bishop unless you believed that inhabiting the structures of the CofE would effect change? I do wonder however if Wright could ever conceive of a situation where revolt against and within the structures of the CofE would be valid, when it would be right to seek alternative oversight, when it would be ok to disobey central authorities for the sake of the gospel.
He makes some valid points in many respects, comments which must sting coming from a self-confessed evangelical. He may well be right about the political inadequacy and bad-timing of the covenant, I'm not sure. He also exposes the fact that the model of ecclesiology assumed in the covenant is not exactly in line with traditional Anglican thought as he sees it. IMHO these valid points he makes probably demonstrate the ultimate untenability of evangelicals remaining within the CofE as it currently stands, rather than strengthening the case for Wright's methodology for achieving reform.
More worryingly, the Bishop seems to 'buy' the popular representation of the type of evangelicals he is criticising. At the same time he seems to sincerely believe that the majority of the bishops in this country are orthodox and that things are in a generally decent condition in the CofE. From my limited experience, I certainly do not recognise the CofE Wright seems to be living in.
This more positive picture relies partly on a dogged belief that whilst the paper definitions of the denomination remain orthodox all is relatively well. This, I would contend, is position hard to maintain in the face of long-term ignorance of and deviation from these paper definitions.
Thus, one of the major differences between Tom Wright's approach and those of his opponents seems to be Wright's faith in the structures to produce reform and renewal. Of course this is no surprise since he is a Bishop and who'd want to be a Bishop unless you believed that inhabiting the structures of the CofE would effect change? I do wonder however if Wright could ever conceive of a situation where revolt against and within the structures of the CofE would be valid, when it would be right to seek alternative oversight, when it would be ok to disobey central authorities for the sake of the gospel.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Anglican Fellowship
Curious developments in the Church of England (taken from Anglican Mainstream website read here.):
A small group met with the Archbishop of Canterbury on Tuesday December 12 and presented A Covenant for the Church of England on behalf of a wide group of Evangelical and Charismatic members of the Church of England with the support of a number of Anglo-Catholic leaders.
The Covenant is the fruit of an ongoing process reacting not to a few local or immediate difficulties but responding to widespread concerns in the national and global church.
The group were listened to carefully and as a result of the meeting it was agreed that there would be further discussion of the issues raised in the Covenant to find a way to maintain the unity in truth of the Church of England.
Click here for the covenant itself.
After a quick read, the covenant seems pretty direct and is a very welcome development as far as I'm concerned. And I am supportive of what my brothers and sisters (who are older, wiser and more godly than I) are trying to do in making this important (perhaps historically significant?) move.
But, as always for me with questions regarding the CofE, one thing nags at the back of my mind. And it's this phrase:
...with the support of a number of Anglo-Catholic leaders...
Call me uncharitable (and yes, I don't know the individuals Anglo-Catholics involved or what they believe etc. etc.), but I find it very difficult to be satisfied with a rallying call which fails to address the differences between Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical theology. I'm totally unconvinced that the problem in the CofE is only with liberalism. I'm not prepared to say that the matters over which Anglo-catholics and Evangelicals are often divided are of no consequence to fellowship. But that's maybe one of the reasons I'm not a CofE ordinand (although I am currently a member of a CofE congregation).
Maybe I'm reading too much into the covenant but talk of a developing two-way division in the Church seems to me to be a papering over of the other major division(s?). Said enough now, better shut up.
(It strikes me that these posts and comments are sort of relevant to this issue in some way)
A small group met with the Archbishop of Canterbury on Tuesday December 12 and presented A Covenant for the Church of England on behalf of a wide group of Evangelical and Charismatic members of the Church of England with the support of a number of Anglo-Catholic leaders.
The Covenant is the fruit of an ongoing process reacting not to a few local or immediate difficulties but responding to widespread concerns in the national and global church.
The group were listened to carefully and as a result of the meeting it was agreed that there would be further discussion of the issues raised in the Covenant to find a way to maintain the unity in truth of the Church of England.
Click here for the covenant itself.
After a quick read, the covenant seems pretty direct and is a very welcome development as far as I'm concerned. And I am supportive of what my brothers and sisters (who are older, wiser and more godly than I) are trying to do in making this important (perhaps historically significant?) move.
But, as always for me with questions regarding the CofE, one thing nags at the back of my mind. And it's this phrase:
...with the support of a number of Anglo-Catholic leaders...
Call me uncharitable (and yes, I don't know the individuals Anglo-Catholics involved or what they believe etc. etc.), but I find it very difficult to be satisfied with a rallying call which fails to address the differences between Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical theology. I'm totally unconvinced that the problem in the CofE is only with liberalism. I'm not prepared to say that the matters over which Anglo-catholics and Evangelicals are often divided are of no consequence to fellowship. But that's maybe one of the reasons I'm not a CofE ordinand (although I am currently a member of a CofE congregation).
Maybe I'm reading too much into the covenant but talk of a developing two-way division in the Church seems to me to be a papering over of the other major division(s?). Said enough now, better shut up.
(It strikes me that these posts and comments are sort of relevant to this issue in some way)
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Getting baptised is like getting tattooed
Here's a quote I like. It's about baptism and is in the context of discussing the necessity of church membership as identified by the Word (response to the gospel) and the sacraments (sealed in baptism, celebrated etc. in the Lord's Supper).
‘The question is not where our names are written, but where his name is written. In baptism we are numbered among the children of God, receiving the name of our Father, written, as it were, on our foreheads (Mt. 28:19; Rev. 14:1). To be sure, the washing of God’s regenerating grace is accomplished by the water of the Spirit, not that of the font, but the outward sign functions precisely because it is outward; it is the Lord’s visible seal of his invisible grace.’ [italics original]
What a great way of thinking about baptism - our Father's name written forever on our foreheads signifying and sealing the relationship we have with him by grace.
All of which means getting baptised is a little like getting a tattoo!
Or maybe more like getting your marriage certificate?
‘The question is not where our names are written, but where his name is written. In baptism we are numbered among the children of God, receiving the name of our Father, written, as it were, on our foreheads (Mt. 28:19; Rev. 14:1). To be sure, the washing of God’s regenerating grace is accomplished by the water of the Spirit, not that of the font, but the outward sign functions precisely because it is outward; it is the Lord’s visible seal of his invisible grace.’ [italics original]
What a great way of thinking about baptism - our Father's name written forever on our foreheads signifying and sealing the relationship we have with him by grace.
All of which means getting baptised is a little like getting a tattoo!
Or maybe more like getting your marriage certificate?
Monday, October 23, 2006
Women Preaching to Men and Ordination and all that kind of thing
Following on from this post, Sandy Grant (an Anglican Minister in Sydney) has kindly sent me details of his response to Graham Cole's paper on Women teaching Men in the Church which he gave at Oak Hill earlier this year (and which also seems to be doing the rounds in Sydney). Sandy's paper addresses each of Graham's seven points/considerations very ably and also contains a handy link to Graham's original paper online.
Sandy Grant's paper can be read HERE
Graham Cole's paper (for those who don't have access to the copy on Acorn) can be read HERE
Sandy Grant's paper can be read HERE
Graham Cole's paper (for those who don't have access to the copy on Acorn) can be read HERE
Friday, May 19, 2006
Should we just 'Adam and Eve it'?
One of the benefits of being at bible college is the opportunity it gives to think hard about some thorny issues. I'm talking about the kind of issues that are (in some respects at least) 'secondary' (e.g. although I would baptise babies I would happily fellowship with someone who doesn't) but nevertheless important because
a. They're part of what God has given us graciously in his loving self-revelation in the bible.
b. Therefore they must be (ultimately) for our good and our spiritual health and the health of our churches (otherwise why would God have bothered telling us anything about them?).
Last night for example, I was at a lecture held at college looking at the issue 'can women preach to men?' where a guy called Graham Cole was arguing for a 'yes' (some people may be surprised to hear that such views are given an airing at a 'fundamentalist-faschist-narrow-minded-calvinistic' institution like Oak Hill, but let me tell you, not only are they given an airing but they are backed by several members of the faculty, and women do preach in college chapel services!). It was a great opportunity to hear from someone committed to scripture and yet taking a different view to the one I've always taken. I went prepared to be persuaded, though clear in my own head why I've always held to more of a 'no' position.
Graham Cole presented his case very tightly, with more than a little passion and much skill. However, I'm sorry to say that he failed to persuade me. Although his case makes sense logically not all of the steps in his argument are (in my opinion) true.
Of crucial importance was his interpretation of 1Timothy 2:11-15 which is perhaps the clearest apparent prohibition of women publicly preaching to a mixed congregation. Cole's argument was that in 1Timothy Paul was addressing a specific situation in the church at Ephesus where people were getting misled by false teaching (which is true) and therefore he is re-establishing the authority of his own apostleship and his teaching in the church by restricting who can teach. So, when Paul refers to the Genesis story (2:13-14) to back up his prohibition he is making an analogy to Eve being misled by listening to the serpent instead of listening to Adam who had been given God's word. The point (in this view) is not so much that 'women can't teach men because there's a basic difference between them by nature or in the way God has ordered his world' but 'those who have received God's word should teach it and others should listen'. So, women could've taught freely in the church in general, it's just that not so in the church in Ephesus because they were listening to false teaching and as a result Paul was needing to restrict the teaching role to those to whom God's word had been first given (himself especially and through him Timothy) and those they would appoint as trustworthy (the elders Timothy is to appoint in ch3).
The problem however is that Cole failed to explain why all the people Paul does permit to teach publicly to a mixed congregation are men. Why forbid all women to teach any men? And if the teaching/leadership office is open to women in exactly the same way as to men, why not get Timothy to appoint faithful elders and 'elderesses' in chapter 3, those men and women who were godly and gifted and reliable who hadn't been duped by the false teachers?
More crucially however, was his suggestion that Paul was using the creation story of Genesis 1-3 purely as an appropriate analogy rather than to say something specific about the nature of men and women and God's created chosen order. In my opinion, this view hinges on there not being any theological significance in God creating Adam first and not Eve, such that when Paul says 'Adam was formed first, then Eve' he's talking about the mere facts of the story to say that those who receive God's word first (which in the Genesis story just happened to be the man because he was made first) should teach it and others should listen (which just happened to be Eve). In other words, God could've created Adam second but it just so happened he didn't, and we can't read anything theological (about the nature of how God does things and orders things) or anthropological (about the way God has made humans and wants his people to be ordered) into it. This seems a highly unlikely and minimalistic reading of Genesis and Paul and I'm unconvinced by it for the following reasons;
a. Genesis 1-3 is a carefully ordered narrative, and just about all the other details do have theological significance. It seems unimaginable that just about everything else in the story is meant to tell us something about the nature of what it means to be human and about how God relates to humans etc. etc. and yet the fact that Adam is created first and received God's word first is incidental and tells us nothing about the nature or order of how God want things to be.
b. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 reads more naturally as taking the Genesis account as normative for male-female order in God's people (not just illustrative of falling foul to false teaching). He uses the specific example of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 to back up a general statement about men and women in vs. 12. This, I would argue, better explains the general language of 1 Timothy 2 and also the male-dominated pattern of leadership in the rest of the letter (and indeed the rest of the scripture).
So, practically, I'm afraid I still think women shouldn't teach or have authority over men, which means that the regular, authoritative preaching of God's word to his gathered people should be given to those men who have been given to the church as pastor-teachers and appointed by the church to serve in this way (whether full-time paid or not). If this is what God has said we should do then it must be better than doing it our own way and it must ultimately be for our good.
However, much more thought needs to be given to the biblical gift of prophecy, since it is abundantly clear that this is different from what the bible calls teaching and yet it is a gift that women can exercise in the context of church meetings (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). It seems that perhaps the problems over women's minsitry wouldn't arise so much if our church services and our church life wasn't so minister/clergy dominated and instead teaching-leaders exercised their ministries in an Ephesians 4:11-16 kind of way - equipping everyone else to be able to use their gifts to build the church. We need the authoritative and regular teaching of God's word by pastors so that the whole church is able to speak the truth in love as we grow up to be mature Christ-like christian communities.
a. They're part of what God has given us graciously in his loving self-revelation in the bible.
b. Therefore they must be (ultimately) for our good and our spiritual health and the health of our churches (otherwise why would God have bothered telling us anything about them?).
Last night for example, I was at a lecture held at college looking at the issue 'can women preach to men?' where a guy called Graham Cole was arguing for a 'yes' (some people may be surprised to hear that such views are given an airing at a 'fundamentalist-faschist-narrow-minded-calvinistic' institution like Oak Hill, but let me tell you, not only are they given an airing but they are backed by several members of the faculty, and women do preach in college chapel services!). It was a great opportunity to hear from someone committed to scripture and yet taking a different view to the one I've always taken. I went prepared to be persuaded, though clear in my own head why I've always held to more of a 'no' position.
Graham Cole presented his case very tightly, with more than a little passion and much skill. However, I'm sorry to say that he failed to persuade me. Although his case makes sense logically not all of the steps in his argument are (in my opinion) true.
Of crucial importance was his interpretation of 1Timothy 2:11-15 which is perhaps the clearest apparent prohibition of women publicly preaching to a mixed congregation. Cole's argument was that in 1Timothy Paul was addressing a specific situation in the church at Ephesus where people were getting misled by false teaching (which is true) and therefore he is re-establishing the authority of his own apostleship and his teaching in the church by restricting who can teach. So, when Paul refers to the Genesis story (2:13-14) to back up his prohibition he is making an analogy to Eve being misled by listening to the serpent instead of listening to Adam who had been given God's word. The point (in this view) is not so much that 'women can't teach men because there's a basic difference between them by nature or in the way God has ordered his world' but 'those who have received God's word should teach it and others should listen'. So, women could've taught freely in the church in general, it's just that not so in the church in Ephesus because they were listening to false teaching and as a result Paul was needing to restrict the teaching role to those to whom God's word had been first given (himself especially and through him Timothy) and those they would appoint as trustworthy (the elders Timothy is to appoint in ch3).
The problem however is that Cole failed to explain why all the people Paul does permit to teach publicly to a mixed congregation are men. Why forbid all women to teach any men? And if the teaching/leadership office is open to women in exactly the same way as to men, why not get Timothy to appoint faithful elders and 'elderesses' in chapter 3, those men and women who were godly and gifted and reliable who hadn't been duped by the false teachers?
More crucially however, was his suggestion that Paul was using the creation story of Genesis 1-3 purely as an appropriate analogy rather than to say something specific about the nature of men and women and God's created chosen order. In my opinion, this view hinges on there not being any theological significance in God creating Adam first and not Eve, such that when Paul says 'Adam was formed first, then Eve' he's talking about the mere facts of the story to say that those who receive God's word first (which in the Genesis story just happened to be the man because he was made first) should teach it and others should listen (which just happened to be Eve). In other words, God could've created Adam second but it just so happened he didn't, and we can't read anything theological (about the nature of how God does things and orders things) or anthropological (about the way God has made humans and wants his people to be ordered) into it. This seems a highly unlikely and minimalistic reading of Genesis and Paul and I'm unconvinced by it for the following reasons;
a. Genesis 1-3 is a carefully ordered narrative, and just about all the other details do have theological significance. It seems unimaginable that just about everything else in the story is meant to tell us something about the nature of what it means to be human and about how God relates to humans etc. etc. and yet the fact that Adam is created first and received God's word first is incidental and tells us nothing about the nature or order of how God want things to be.
b. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 reads more naturally as taking the Genesis account as normative for male-female order in God's people (not just illustrative of falling foul to false teaching). He uses the specific example of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 to back up a general statement about men and women in vs. 12. This, I would argue, better explains the general language of 1 Timothy 2 and also the male-dominated pattern of leadership in the rest of the letter (and indeed the rest of the scripture).
So, practically, I'm afraid I still think women shouldn't teach or have authority over men, which means that the regular, authoritative preaching of God's word to his gathered people should be given to those men who have been given to the church as pastor-teachers and appointed by the church to serve in this way (whether full-time paid or not). If this is what God has said we should do then it must be better than doing it our own way and it must ultimately be for our good.
However, much more thought needs to be given to the biblical gift of prophecy, since it is abundantly clear that this is different from what the bible calls teaching and yet it is a gift that women can exercise in the context of church meetings (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). It seems that perhaps the problems over women's minsitry wouldn't arise so much if our church services and our church life wasn't so minister/clergy dominated and instead teaching-leaders exercised their ministries in an Ephesians 4:11-16 kind of way - equipping everyone else to be able to use their gifts to build the church. We need the authoritative and regular teaching of God's word by pastors so that the whole church is able to speak the truth in love as we grow up to be mature Christ-like christian communities.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Dismembered Membership
This posting will probably only be relevant to those who were at the afternoon question time with Mark Dever (Fri 20th) So sorry for those who have no clue what this discussion is all about. Needless to say, it covers issues that are important but not absolutely essential, so feel free to ignore or contribute at will.
Here's the problem as I see it with the practice on membership as articulated by Mark Dever, or perhaps better put, here's the current question I have.
If issues that are important but not essential to the gospel can limit church membership (i.e. Mark Dever could not admit to membership of his congregation someone who was a committed infant baptist) then what is the church?
The church under this practice is now something other than the community of those who have been gathered to God by the saving Gospel of Christ. It is the community of those who have been gathered to God by the saving Gospel of Christ and have baptist/congregationalist convictions.
Or, put another way. If the church is a community that is brought into existence only by the gospel, how come issues that are non-essential to the gospel (by Mark's own admission) can stand in the way of membership?
Or, put perhaps more provocatively, why if Christ has welcomed someone into his church, are we allowed to keep them out of 'ours'? Unless of course, being a paedobaptist is an 'error' of such an order that it warrants church discipline. If this is the case, I fail to see how baptists could justify any co-operation at all with paedobaptists, even at a para-church level.
It seemed to me that at least a degree of the justification given for this practice was a practical rather than a scriptural consideration, namely that acceptance into membership of a paedobaptist could lead the congregation over time towards such a position. Ηowever, surely there are equal dangers in accepting someone who holds to a dispensationalist position on the return of Christ and the future of Israel, or any of the other issues that Mark Dever indicated would not be a barr to membership. As the discussion progressed on this point I felt we had left the realms of what scripture prescribes and moved into the arena of what might seem expedient given the spiritual climate in America (I had a similar feeling as Mark justified his reasons for not baptising anyone under 16).
I also wonder if this perhaps highlights one weakness of a 'members-voting' model of church government - the voting power of the members means that the brother or sister who feels strongly on a particular issue but is happy to sit under the leadership of those who disagree with him has to be kept out of membership. And it does seem as if the voting is the key issue here, since Mark Dever would happily have a paedobaptist preach to his church, though presumably not on baptism.
I don't think in any way that this somehow sweeps away eveything Mark was saying, or that my question somehow 'disproves' his view. No doubt he has done so much more thinking on this than a short question time could reveal. I also suspect, as I reflect a little more on it, that there are similar issues raised if we take any stance on meaningful membership (which I think all of us most certainly should).
Anyway, please point out the errors in my presumptions and let me know your thoughts/answers/suggestions.
Here's the problem as I see it with the practice on membership as articulated by Mark Dever, or perhaps better put, here's the current question I have.
If issues that are important but not essential to the gospel can limit church membership (i.e. Mark Dever could not admit to membership of his congregation someone who was a committed infant baptist) then what is the church?
The church under this practice is now something other than the community of those who have been gathered to God by the saving Gospel of Christ. It is the community of those who have been gathered to God by the saving Gospel of Christ and have baptist/congregationalist convictions.
Or, put another way. If the church is a community that is brought into existence only by the gospel, how come issues that are non-essential to the gospel (by Mark's own admission) can stand in the way of membership?
Or, put perhaps more provocatively, why if Christ has welcomed someone into his church, are we allowed to keep them out of 'ours'? Unless of course, being a paedobaptist is an 'error' of such an order that it warrants church discipline. If this is the case, I fail to see how baptists could justify any co-operation at all with paedobaptists, even at a para-church level.
It seemed to me that at least a degree of the justification given for this practice was a practical rather than a scriptural consideration, namely that acceptance into membership of a paedobaptist could lead the congregation over time towards such a position. Ηowever, surely there are equal dangers in accepting someone who holds to a dispensationalist position on the return of Christ and the future of Israel, or any of the other issues that Mark Dever indicated would not be a barr to membership. As the discussion progressed on this point I felt we had left the realms of what scripture prescribes and moved into the arena of what might seem expedient given the spiritual climate in America (I had a similar feeling as Mark justified his reasons for not baptising anyone under 16).
I also wonder if this perhaps highlights one weakness of a 'members-voting' model of church government - the voting power of the members means that the brother or sister who feels strongly on a particular issue but is happy to sit under the leadership of those who disagree with him has to be kept out of membership. And it does seem as if the voting is the key issue here, since Mark Dever would happily have a paedobaptist preach to his church, though presumably not on baptism.
I don't think in any way that this somehow sweeps away eveything Mark was saying, or that my question somehow 'disproves' his view. No doubt he has done so much more thinking on this than a short question time could reveal. I also suspect, as I reflect a little more on it, that there are similar issues raised if we take any stance on meaningful membership (which I think all of us most certainly should).
Anyway, please point out the errors in my presumptions and let me know your thoughts/answers/suggestions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
