2. You're Going to Hate Sausage Forever (BCO Preface II.1-3)

Scott, Jared, and Ben are joined by Steve Tipton in the first of two conversations about the PCA BCO Preliminary Principles. 

PCA BCO online

Episode 1: Preface I

Steve Tipton is the pastor of Covenant PCA in Panama City, FL, and an editor at Presbyterian Polity.

RTS Jackson

Buy the RPCNA Constitution for FREE!

prolegomena: a formal essay or critical discussion serving to introduce and interpret an extended work

Westminster Confession 21

James Bannerman's The Church of Christ

Guy Waters' How Jesus Runs the Church

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Introductions

SPEAKER_03 0:15

Hello and welcome to Polity Matters. This is episode two of BYO BCO. My name is Ben Ratliff, and I am joined by Scott Edberg and Jarek Nelson. Today we are continuing the discussion that we began last week on the preface of the PCA Book of Church Order. That first section we discussed is called The King and Head of the Church. And we we discussed and went through that it establishes the regulative principle of polity. You know, that that truth that we are Presbyterian because our King commands that we be so. And it's summed up well in the title of Guy Waters' book. Um it's not how we run the church, but it's how Jesus runs the church. And today we're going to embark on our journey through the next part of the preface to part two called the preliminary principles. But before we do that, we have a guest. Uh Jared, why don't you uh introduce our ride-along companion?

SPEAKER_00 1:08

Yeah, so um our other voice that you're going to be hearing today is that of Steve Tipton. Uh he's somebody that I mentioned actually last time as one of the people that I used to watch that seemed to know what he was actually doing polity-wise. Um and he is used to be in our presbytery and ascension, was moderator there. Uh, he's been in RPR, which is Review of Presbyterian Records, um, has been uh even chairing that and has uh even at one time been up front at General Assembly as an assistant parliamentarian. So thought that he could help us along uh with a little bit of this, but uh also thought maybe Steve, you could just give us a brief introduction to you and uh when did you get interested in Presbyterian polity?

SPEAKER_01 1:51

Yeah, well, thanks guys for having me on. That was a very generous introduction by Jared. I wasn't really sure I recognize uh recognized myself there in some of that. I was raised Southern Baptist, I was not a Christian at the time. I mean, I wasn't a believer at the time, but you know, belonged to a Southern Baptist Church. And so I got to see kind of congregational polity and uh all of it, you know, expediency and able to do certain things quickly, uh, but also from time to time saw some of the negative sides of that polity. I mean, really didn't understand it at the time, but you know, kind of looking back, seeing some of the things that can happen uh in in congregationalism. When I met my my wife, she grew up Presbyterian, she grew up in the PCUSA, and so uh when we got married and were going to church with her, I was going with her, got to see uh a very different side of again church polity, not not knowing those terms or ways of understanding things. Got came to an appreciation certainly for reform theology through that, but not so much on the polity side, just you know, it's kind of more of an advanced level than just the theology piece. But I felt called to ministry and uh we eventually moved from the PC USA to the PCA uh while I was still doing my undergraduate work in California, and uh then eventually went to uh RTS in Jackson. And I think it was just you know, sometimes it's it's the friends that you make. And so I got to know Guy Waters pretty well. Uh we both, I think it was the same year, we started the same year there. Obviously, he was teaching and I was a student. Um, but uh just got to know him a little bit and really appreciated his insight into polity issues, took polity from uh from Guy, and he's been a friend of mine ever since. Really, I think it it started in uh maybe the second year I was in censure, uh Jared, maybe about the same time as we got her. There was uh we had a representative to go to RPR, review of Presbyterian Records, who couldn't go because of scheduling issues. And uh that individual was my one of my ruling elders, and so he encouraged me to take his spot. Uh, it really was sort of baptism by fire, trying to figure out uh you know what was going on and what all these people were talking about. And I I think maybe that was really what got me interested in the polity of the church is digging through and and seeing kind of how the sausage is made. I guess it's it's gonna do one of two things. You're either going to hate sausage forever, uh, or that's all you want is more sausage. So I'm one of the more sausage guys. I just I really, really enjoyed it and have been back a number of times and just wanted to learn more about our BCO and how how it worked. I've read uh quite a bit, uh, not as extensively as some, but but probably more than most, perhaps, in uh our you know, polity ecclesiology type things, uh, and just have continued to enjoy that aspect of what it means to be a Presbyterian.

SPEAKER_03 4:44

I know the listeners can't really get a sense for this without seeing us, but the the aura at play with three RTS Jackson grads on the same screen is is unbelievable. Well, if if you're following along, if you've pulled up the BCO and you're able to look at the preface with us, you'll see that before in preface two, just before the preliminary principles uh begin to get listed, there's sort of uh what we're calling a preamble. Since that's where we're it starts, we're gonna start there too, and just work our way through uh this document and and we've uh we have some thoughts for you as we discuss it. So the the beginning, the preamble, uh goes like this. The Presbyterian Church in America and setting forth the form of government founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God reiterates the following great principles which have governed the formation of the plan. And I was wondering, Jared, if you could start us off here, maybe explain a little bit about the source of these principles that are about to follow.

SPEAKER_00 5:40

Yeah, these uh preliminary principles are not uh universal in every single Presbyterian church that you'll find even in America, but they did begin in America. They were affixed to the form of government in 1788, and uh eventually they got lost in the Southern Presbyterian church for some reason. They they no longer become part of their constitution, and then the um the PCA discovered them again against the attic and then re-affixed them to the beginning. These were written when this was going to be a Presbyterian church in America, it's not in the colonies anymore. Uh they were coming into their own, they were uh revising even the constitution in chapters 20 and 23, especially of the Westminster Standards. And it's at least kind of, I don't know if it's about legend or just one person at least that said this guy uh bell screen, uh, that John Witherspoon was the guy that actually came up with the news on the committee and may have actually uh coined them all uh and wrote these as kind of the the the background, the foundations of the entirety of what follows later. So I I don't know if you would really call them like the Bill of Rights to the BCO because they don't quite function that way. You can't really like get things overturned, I don't think, in the rest of the BCO if you uh appeal to them, it doesn't quite work that way. Everything really should be seen in light of these and it gives us a basis for if we're going to add or subtract to it. Do they fit with the preliminary principles or uh do they undermine them? Uh which can also lead to some interesting uh questions later if we have parts of our VCO that may seem not to go with that. Uh do they actually align or do they not? Maybe we could talk a little bit more about that uh uh later.

SPEAKER_02 7:20

Scott, why why are the principles needed? Well, I I was thinking through that question and I started going down the rabbit hole with other constitutions. And so I don't know if you know this, but you can you can buy the RPCNA uh Book of Church Order for free on their website. I don't know why they make you buy it, but you have to go through all of that. And so I was looking through other constitutions, wondering just the the wide uh how wide the application for using preliminary principles were within the reformed world. And I I I found uh not many denominations use them, at least how we use them. There's no preliminary, some of the content is used elsewhere, like in the OPC, the URCNA, and the RPCNA, but there's not many denominations even today that have a guiding principle set that we do. Uh the importance for that is that they remind us as we are amending the constitution and following the constitution, uh, the foundation of the constitution. And so you'll hear throughout the assembly and throughout the various committees as they do their work, appeals to the preliminary principles. The CCB will often say that we cannot pass this. Uh the CCB is sometimes ignored. We cannot pass this because it violates uh PP1, preliminary principle one. And so it's a good framework for thinking about what holds together or what we seek to hold together our constitution. Um but I maybe have a question, why to the broader group, maybe even to Steve, how do denominations function without preliminary principles as it relates to their constitution?

SPEAKER_01 8:58

Yeah, I don't know how necessarily they they function without it. I mean, imagine in the same way we would if we just took them out. I mean, you still have a BCO that's that has all the provisions for all the things that you do. You know, not having it wouldn't necessarily be in that sense a detriment. I mean, clearly their polity is based upon the principles that are in the preliminary principles, whether they whether they believe it is or not, to some degree or other. But I do think that part of this is Presbyterian history, and there are many people who much better to get on to talk about the history of Presbyterian United States. But there are many different kinds of streams and rivulets that come out of whether it's Scotland, Ireland, different times in Scotland. I would say that these preliminary principles having been, assuming that they were, hit by Witherspoon so early on that they're going to be more attached to kind of American Presbyterianism. So for instance, like the ARP, it shouldn't be surprising ARP wouldn't have them because they are an associate reform, you know, the associate Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Presbyterian Church that came over later on. And so they're gonna adopt a more Scottish form, whereas in some ways those proliferary principles were an attempt to maybe do two things, right? To to reach back into established uh Presbyterian principles, but also to have a this this could be misunderstood, like a uniquely American form. I mean, again, it's not entirely unique, it's not entirely separate, but things like you know uh the division between the state power and church power and how those things work in our principles are are a little different than what our Scottish forefathers believed and argued for. And so I think in that sense, they were an opportunity to kind of draw a line in the stand. And again, that that analogy can also be missed, but uh to to draw uh a line somewhere and say, okay, you know, these these are the principles upon which American Presbyterians, this particular way of doing Presbyterianism is going to be established and followed. And if my memory serves, I'm looking on the PCA historical site. I think they were originally adopted by the OPC, but then somehow they dropped out of their BCO. And that may just be an editorial issue more than anything else. Uh, even in the PCUF, they they dropped out fairly early on, uh, you know, long before liberalism had become a problem in the PCUS. It wasn't a liberal move to reject, or whether you want to call it reject, or just remove the preliminary principles. I think we can say it's a mark of proper Presbyterianism to have them. Rather, as a continuing church, we have seen the wisdom and the importance of having those principles in our Book of Church Order and seeking, maybe not always succeeding, but keen to build, to form our government on that foundation.

SPEAKER_02 12:00

Did you think of a time perhaps in the PCA's history where a BCO amendment has been added to our constitution that violated one of these principles?

SPEAKER_01 12:09

No, no, no. I um I but I do think that the the principles are broad enough and are foundational in nature so that in one sense I think it would be very difficult for us to pass an obature that would directly contradict a preliminary principle. It'd be really hard to do that. Now, there have been uh times where phrases could be in to be in conflict with the preliminary principle. Usually, uh I don't have them enumerated in front of me, and I don't have them memorized either. Uh, but you know, the one that talks about uh the congregation electing officers, and there have been some things that have been tried in the past that I don't think were done maliciously to remove that principle, but just not well thought out, so that the the an action that could be taken by a presbytery would in fact violate that principle. And so in my memory, those things going through overtures, they get either amended very easily or they just get defeated because or sent back to the presbytery or whatever, especially overtures, that committee, there is a sincere desire to not uh violate those preliminary principles.

SPEAKER_00 13:22

Well, one other thing uh we probably should uh ask is why are we doing the preliminary principles? Uh, how is it significant? And I I wonder if um uh Steve would still have this. I remember telling you the story of uh having the question during one of my uh, I think it was during my licensure exam. They asked me what is the most important part of the BCO. And uh I said, well, I don't know. And the guy answered the index. And I remember telling you that story, and then you remember what your reply was, right?

SPEAKER_01 13:49

Probably, you know, something like that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Yeah, I mean, I okay, indexes are are really important. Actually, um, I never use my index because I have my BCO on my iPad and I just search for things, but that's you know, maybe that's the search function now becomes the most important part. If we're gonna say that our polity is built upon cool principles, and if it isn't built upon biblical principles, then what's the point of having following it? Just to say it's better or wiser or more convenient in some other way. If we believe that our polity is built upon biblical principles, then it would be helpful to have a place where we talk about what those principles are. And uh, you know, certainly we are not exhausting those biblical principles in the preliminary principles, but it's important to recognize what principles are. In one sense, the preliminary principles, I would say, sort of act like prolegamana in a theological system. You know, prologamana is usually not most people's favorite part of theology, but it's incredibly important because it it sets out the definitions of the terms that we're going to be talking about. It sets out the direction, the limits of those terms. It it provides the ground, particularly prologamonas, where you talk about scripture as that principle of the theology itself, and and you know what is the scope of your theology, or in our case, you know, what is the scope of your polity? And so, I mean, I would argue that the preliminary principles are the most important part of the BCO, that if you don't understand them, if you're not, if you're not conversant in the ideas that they talk about, again, you don't have to memorize them, but if you're not conversant in those concepts, then ultimately your polity becomes a function of uh just human wisdom. Uh and we understand from our Westminster Confession of Faith that there are circumstances of church government that are common to human societies. And you know, they're guided by the light of nature, they're guided by Christian prudence, and they're always to be in conformity with the word of God. But without preliminary principles, I think more and more of our polity, more and more common notions per se are going to encroach upon our policy, and we're not drawing it back consistently to our understanding of what scripture says and what scripture does. And these principles do that. They also don't just tie us back to scripture, but they tie us back to the confession's interpretation of scripture. I mean, preliminary principle one, which I'm imagining we'll be looking at in just a second, um, is is very much kind of an amalgam just of different places in the confession, drawing them together and placing them and reminding us of their importance for polity. You know, I would certainly encourage people to study them, to think about them, and to understand their importance, their place, and and to seek to, in some sense, interpret uh the BCO in light of them. I think that, you know, we have to be careful. BCO 17.2, whatever that is, um, means what it says, right? It doesn't mean what it says as interpreted through the lens of some other document or some other place in the BCO. Uh, it means what it means as it's written there, but it is built upon a foundation that comes from the preliminary principles. And so I don't think they stand like a Bill of Rights or something that can change, alter uh what comes after it. And so sort of find in our study of the BCO that there's a provision that violates, clearly violates a preliminary principle, there's no way to interpret that uh in light of a preliminary principle because it's in body of it. It needs to be changed, it needs to be updated, altered, or removed, or whatever. I think that there's a sense in which we can we can move beyond uh the way these two pieces are actually put together, preliminary principles on one hand, and then the actual uh provisions on the other.

SPEAKER_03 17:52

Well, we're all eager to move along to the first of these principles. And since all of you are probably scrambling to find your BCO, uh 17-2 is actually the definition of the doctrine of ordination. So uh you can save yourself a little

Preliminary Principle #1

SPEAKER_03 18:05

time. Here's preliminary principle number one. God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from any doctrines or commandments of men, A, which are in any respect contrary to the word of God, or B, which in regard to matters of faith and worship are not governed by the Word of God. Therefore, the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable. No religious constitution should be supported by the civil power further than may be necessary for protection and security equal and common to all others. Steve, we've heard a lot from you, but I do want you to begin this one for us. What does it mean there that it God alone is Lord of the conscience?

SPEAKER_01 18:52

Yeah, so I mean, again, it's establishing uh a principle that is, or I guess it's not establishing a principle, it's borrowing a principle from uh our Westminster Confession of Faith uh 21, if I remember correctly, that makes reference to the idea that God alone is Lord of conscience and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, and uses very similar language as it follows. And the idea that is that it that the confession is seeking to discuss and to give uh to give words to, and that our preliminary principles have uh attached on to, the idea is that no one other than God, no one other than Christ, ultimately is is Lord of our conscience. And so a church or the state for that matter cannot create doctrines, they cannot create commandments for us to follow. Um if they are if they are in any respect contrary to the word of God, then they are you know beyond what God has said. So we cannot, as a church, we cannot require people to believe things other than what God has uh directed us and given us into His Word. We can't tell people to do things, we can't require a duty of them not um also found in God's Word. And certainly you think about faith and worship, right? Again, we cannot require someone to believe things. We don't have recourse to the Bible, and our worship is regulated, is governed by the word of God, not by the doctrines and commandments. And so we we talk about the idea of the right of of private judgment uh is another important piece of this, and it is not denying the fact that that God is Lord of the conscience, that that there is no other Lord of how I am to understand whether it's faith or practice, and practice in a variety of ways, whether it's worship in particular, church polity, or any other thing, there's no other guide to faith and practice than is the word of God. And that word is the Lord's word, and he is the one who rules and reigns in the hearts and the consciences of men. And so no one else can take that role of being the Lord of someone's conscience.

SPEAKER_03 21:06

Any any thoughts on that middle portion, especially when we get to the A and B about respecting um God's word, uh the issue of matters of faith and worship. Maybe you guys want to distinguish between those uh and walk us through.

SPEAKER_02 21:19

Well, I I've done, I've had to stop myself from becoming uh covenanter this week as I read Bannerman on this issue, because he would have A, B, and C on this. He would have uh that there are limits to the Christian conscience, liberty of conscience as it relates to the Word of God, as we've referenced here in faith and worship. But then he would also include the ordinance of civil authority. And so that the magistrate himself has um some responsibility in uh in the life of not only the church, but society itself with regards to uh what the church um believes but also um practices. I think uh most poignantly it deals with um and at least in Bannerman the idea of how the the state itself legislates um certain and criminalizes certain activities whether they be heresy or blasphemy um that's not really applicable to the American context and so I think that's part of the preliminary principle one for us is at the end there it sidesteps uh the civil authority as uh as how Bannerman would outline but the first the first two points A and B are are are very historical um to Presbyterianism. Uh Bannerman says on on the first A, uh the first limit then says the right of conscience is the obligation to the law of God, the divine law. There cannot be a more dangerous tenant than that which under the plea of liberty of conscience expressly or virtually denies this limitation. And what that's getting at is that we do not have the liberty to do what is morally wrong. We hear perhaps in our own culture and day and age where it's everyone appeals to liberty for everything. I have Christian liberty to do this, that or the other thing, but there is a limit and that limit is God's law. God, as Steve said, is the Lord of the conscience. We have no liberty to disobey him and the law that he's given to us. And then B, maybe there's a limit to this a limit to the limit um but also then the ecclesiastical authority that is over you and you as we'll get to one of the other preliminary principles of the membership within the church what does that look like? What do we submit to? Where are the limits perhaps of our um relationship with our own congregations? A good example could perhaps be what do we allow within our congregation to be believed or even talked about maybe things like pay-do communion or baptismal regeneration or federal vision. Do you have the liberty of conscience to believe those things within the context of this congregation and teach that? Well maybe there's a limit there. And so there's a limiting factor we don't have unlimited freedom and liberty to believe whatever we want as it relates um to the church and God there are there are great limits on uh the church particularly but we have no uh liberty to disobey the the Lord the Lord himself.

SPEAKER_01 24:24

Yeah I think one thing that that Bannerman talked about which is also very helpful along that same line is idea that uh and obviously he's echoing language of the confession anyway but it's this idea that you know the Lord who is Lord of conscience is the same Lord who has established the civil magistrate and the you know the church as an ecclesiastical power. And so he has ordained both the civil authority and the ecclesiastical authority and even our confession talks about you know this idea of disobeying these lawful authorities in matters that are not faith and worship is you know under the guise of liberty is is is to sin against that liberty, to sin against that conscience. And so I I think those are important points especially in an American context where you know very much the the spirit of idalism and I get to do what I want and nobody can tell me what I can't do. And the the civil magistrate even as much as we might disagree with it is still ordained by the Lord and the the lawful injunction of the civil magistrates right we can't in good conscience deny the right of the civil magistrate to to to enact laws and we can't as long as they're not requiring us to sin we can't disobey right just because we don't like them or because we don't like people telling us what to do. And so in a similar way obviously there are differences between civil power and ecclesiastical power uh where the church has authority to uh to do the things that it does obviously ministerial and declarative um the a person cannot plead liberty of conscience to ignore or to deny the the lawful ordinances of ecclesiastical authority.

SPEAKER_02 26:13

One thing I like about Bannerman in this section is that he asks the question of where is the limit, where's the line on the civil magistrate and our freedom of liberty and he basically says I cannot draw that line. I don't know I don't know where it is uh and and he poses the question to the reader uh maybe you can figure out where that line is but what one thing I did like from the civil realm is when he was noting it, he says civil authority is not absolute or unlimited for there is a point where in its exercise it meets its rightful domain of conscience and the short the sword ought to be sheathed and to give way before claims which the conscience pleads. Conscience on the other hand is not absolute or unlimited either for there is a point where the rights are met and bounded by the rights of the civil authority.

SPEAKER_00 27:03

And that's how he concludes that section and I guess that in some way sums up what we were talking about well it could be helpful too just a look since we've been walking through this that last sentence I think is important to see this as a fairly American approach to um the the relationship between the church and the state because Bannerman will talk about the spirituality of the church but it looks a little bit different in an American context because a lot of this is a restatement of Westminster Confession 20 which is on the conscience but that chapter is actually different in the American version when it talked about imposing of the civil uh or of centers by the church the original version had at the very end been enforced by the centers of the church and by the power of the civil magistrate and that's taken out in the American version. In fact the early adoption act allowed people to take exception to that and to uh parts of 23 that were in the civil magistrate uh that they disagreed with they eventually rewrote them um but this the statement at the end no religious constitution uh should be supported by the civil power further than maybe necessary for protection and security equal and common to all others would maybe be something that a covenoter would not be comfortable uh with affirming and gives uh our uh our polity a a bit of a a different flair uh an American uh hinge to it yeah I mean there's there's just kind of interesting you know even connotations in the way that sentence is written uh because it seems to suggest um not that there is a protection of security that is equal and common to all Christian churches but religious uh religious constitutions or you might say you know the religious bodies that create constitutions or something like that.

SPEAKER_01 28:51

And so it's not even necessarily trying to suggest that that this this should be extended only to churches, only to not just reform churches or anything like that, but it seems to be uh that there ought to be a protection and security equal and common to all other religions uh supported by civil power which it doesn't it doesn't quite say that but but it seems to be leaning pretty hard in that or you know in that general direction.

Preliminary Principle #2

SPEAKER_03 29:17

Very good here's preliminary principle number two in perfect consistency with the above principle every Christian church or union or association of particular churches is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion and the qualifications of its ministers and members as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ has appointed. In the exercise of this right it may, notwithstanding, err in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow. Yet even in this case it does not infringe upon the liberty or rights of others but only makes an improper use of its own. Steve, I'm gonna I'm gonna pass to you again to get us going as we begin talking about this principle. What stands out to you here? What do you see as the starting place?

SPEAKER_01 30:05

Yeah so I mean this is uh talking about the uh the importance of uh you know uh unions associations of particular churches uh you know churches with a big C in that sense uh to uh declare uh who can be a member and and particularly I think even more than that uh who can be its ministers uh who can who can teach who exercise uh you know the office of uh you know pastor teacher um you know elder deacon etc and um you know one of the things that you this is not suggesting even though this has been argued this way from time to time I don't think this is suggesting that uh certainly not individual churches get to do that I don't even think it's trying to suggest that individual presbyteries get to do that but rather that this is something that the church again a big C, the denomination, the union, the association of all of those particular churches has to do or gets to do, you might say, is entitled to do and that um we have this right to as as a as a denomination I mean I I hate to use that because that's that word isn't in this but as a union of particular churches that we have the authority to declare those terms of admission. I um on the one hand I would want to be careful that we don't suggest that we can add terms of admission into communion as a member we can't add things that are not in scripture. Again this is not denying what what will be said later later about the ministerial and declarative power of the church. So you know we cannot say you have to be a Republican to be a member of the PCA. You know, praise God we can't say that we cannot say in order to be a minister um I mean this is actually a pretty interesting qualification that we we might have to be fighting against you know sooner rather than later. What happens if a BCO amendment is eventually adopted where you have to do a background check and then someone decides well if you don't have a clear background check you can't be a minister you know even if it was 20 years ago or you know or you know whatever. I'm just saying like that's not a qualification to be a minister. And so we you know we we we shouldn't be adding that. But one of the things that it points out that is that is even if we did that, if we exercised this right, we might err it says in making a transit communion either too lax or too narrow. But but even if we did that we're not infringing upon the liberty or rights of others we're only making an improper use of of our own. And that's because no one is forced I mean my children might disagree when they were younger but I mean no one's forced to be members of a PCA church. No one is forced to be a a minister of a PCA church. If someone finds the um the the way in which we have made the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow um that they don't have to belong to our church. They can disassociate and go somewhere else.

SPEAKER_03 33:26

And so I think there's a lot of there's a lot that's packed into this but it's certainly trying to uh help us to understand who who determines those uh those terms of communion and and how they are uh how they are uh they they sort of you know uh filter down into the to the particular churches it's an interesting point the the well you sort of set up two sides of it right that that there's the the one side is that the church has to establish these things but on the other side is that the people who who choose to join are submitting to them but only insofar as they choose to continue submitting to them. They can depart you know at their leisure. They're voluntarily associated. I remember sitting down with a a a man in the church that I served many years ago now and um he he looked at me and he said I just I just don't like the way that uh that uh you know the the elders are running things and that the elders are elected in this particular way and that this is the way things are and I just I just don't know what to do about being in a part of this church and we just need to change it. And I said well that that's unfortunate. And he said what do you suppose that I should do if I'm just so unhappy with these things and he didn't really like what I responded to him with because what I said was that he should leave and find a church that he likes because this is the way that we do things and he was only voluntarily associated with us. Um and we weren't infringing on any of his rights uh by being Presbyterian. We were just infringing on his preferences I suppose as long as he wanted to remain with us. Uh Scott, you you talk about some of this in your notes that you've given us uh about how some other traditions treat membership maybe you have something to say here about setting terms for admission.

SPEAKER_02 35:03

Yeah so and with church membership and I came to faith in the mainline Dutch tradition and part of your membership vows weren't merely evangelical in nature they were reformed in nature and we had to when I made my profession of faith I swore to uphold the three forms of unity as what I believe the church the the scriptures teach. And I always thought that was so unique especially moving into the PCA where um in many of our churches there are Baptists right if you uphold the three forms of unity you're not going to be a Baptist at at my Dutch Reformed church. But the PCA uh at least historically has been less stringent. And I think that's part of the voluntary communion um as we were just talking it it's a little different. Baptists are often permitted to join um but they are unable to hold office. That's where the that's where the rub hits for us. And so it it I find it interesting how various traditions deal with this issue. It's not just you can believe whatever you want and be here. There are guidelines that we all make most to before God in the presence of his people. But it does remind me of a a situation in my polity class uh in Jackson um Guy Waters had I think a ruling elder come give us a lecture and we were talking about um church discipline and excommunication and all that and uh someone asked the question of what do you do with someone who's in the middle of process who just seeks to say I'm done I don't want to be a part of this this body anymore and I want out. And I think the class's sentiment was well you continue process. But the ruling elders argument was no, you release them you release them from membership because it's voluntary and not only that I think its principle is more than just maybe what we're talking about here. It was you can't like civilly the church can fun find lawsuits if they pursue someone who no longer wants to volunteer be with them. And so I reminded of that warning you you may want justice in in some circumstances and for a minister it's certainly perhaps a little different than a church member but there is a voluntary nature that we must remind ourselves when um we associate and those who associate with us.

SPEAKER_00 37:31

Well there's also the civil realm I think uh preliminary principle number two uh also reminds us that voluntary association uh applies to the civil government and in some ways this is also saying uh the government can't tell us who our members are and are not um this is it feels very anti-establishmentarian uh that uh that this voluntary association and that we get to determine who our membership is um and so the the government also on the other end can't come in and say no you have to have this person still as a member in your church.

SPEAKER_03 38:05

No the church government gets to decide who its members are and who

Preliminary Principle #3

SPEAKER_03 38:09

who they're not let's move on to number three which says our blessed savior for the edification of the visible church which is his body has appointed officers not only to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty. It is incumbent upon these officers and upon the whole church in whose name they act to censure or cast out the erroneous and scandalous observing in all cases the rules contained in the Word of God. Steve start us off again I just keep throwing to you I you know it's just because you're here I'm not used to the other I'm not used to to having extra people talk to us a little bit about here about um the the representative aspect of of the government that this principle's setting up for us.

SPEAKER_01 38:57

Yeah well um one of the things I was thinking about and have often thought about with this and is uh a phrase uh an idea that I've heard you know often that American civil government is based upon Presbyterianism uh and I think that there are plenty of of uh you know comparisons that could be made but but one of the dangers of that idea is that you know we do have representative government in the United States. So I'm in Florida uh the great free state of Florida um I mean we all elect our legislatures but but we elect them in the free state of Florida down here and uh send them off to whether it's Tallahassee or Washington depending upon you know what office they're holding and we want them to go to those places and represent us right they're they're representing our interests in those places of civil government and uh one of the dangers in drawing a connection between the civil government as representative and the the way in which we we also have representatives right we have elders we have elders at session elders that go to presbytery elders that go to the to the general assembly is that it it's possible and I've certainly heard this sentiment various times in it's right that that those elders are going to represent you know the people that that elders are elected to go to session to represent the church and that is you know a hundred and eighty degree difference from what the biblical idea of representation is that that elders uh pastors and ruling elders are elected not to represent the people before God I mean we're not priests after all but we are we are appointed to represent Christ to his church and say representative form of government but it but it's the opposite type of representation that we typically see in American government or that we do see in American government. And so I think that's an important point for us to understand and for people to understand right is is this idea that officers are appointed you know ultimately by Christ. This gets into a lot of the doctrine of ordination that we you know we much later in your podcast of course to talk about those things. But you know it's Christ who gifts uh individuals with their gifts it's also christ who gifts the church with those officers and so we have to we have to recognize that but also there's another statement in here that I think is interesting uh I think it's the second sentence that is incumbent upon those officers and upon the whole church in whose name they act to censure cast out etc now we can talk more about the other pieces but I'm just thinking about that first phrase the officers and upon the whole church in whose name they act that it can almost sound as if the preliminary principle is suggesting um that by acting in the name of the church they are in fact representing the church you know it it almost sounds uh a little fuzzy there but uh I was uh looking at I was doing my daily devotional in uh Waters book how Jesus runs the church and you know came across uh he makes this reference to a statement that that that Thomas Peck makes um and and he says that you know the power of the church resides in her it is exercised officers uh so there's this connection between the power that the church has resides in the whole church it's it's not it the power of the church doesn't reside merely in officers it resides in the whole church but its exercise is carried out by the officers who are elected and so again that that that power that Christ has given is not to you know merely to individuals it's to the whole church and then it is exercised by those officers and in one sense we the this sentence could be written a different way right it is incumbent upon those officers and upon you know who act in Christ's name it could say that uh but it also reminds us that that power that officers have is not given to them directly it is given to them indirectly through the election of the congregation they are ordained. And so even though they're gifted by Christ no man can stand up and oh I've had 20 people try to do this right stand up and say I'm gifted by Christ to be a teacher you just need to make me a teacher and that's not how that's not how the church works uh you may be gifted and we may test and try those gifts but at the end of the day those who will teach particularly as officers that they have to have the the approbation of the whole of the uh of the body which they serve and again that's another preliminary principle as well that we're pulling into uh but that's kind of the nature of principles is that they all they all kind of weave together back and forth amongst them so I thought that was an Important point just to bring out both the representative idea, but also the way in which that power flows from Christ to the officers in the church.

SPEAKER_03 44:09

Jared, help walk us through this idea of officers and what they've been appointed to do. Speaking about the three marks.

SPEAKER_00 44:18

To piggyback on what Steve was saying, uh, this seems to be not only a preliminary principle, but a charge and a challenge to the officers. Uh when you read through this, you realize the three marks of the church are coming out here in preaching sacraments and uh church discipline. And these are falling on the officers that you are to maintain these things within the church. This is this is a charge and a challenge. It's a grave responsibility to uh the elders, and they should be very serious about what they're doing. Some people I think approach being an officer in the churches, you get this title or this uh it's kind of like just an honor, or um, you know, it's a uh uh something that you just pout around. But no, it's a it's a grave responsibility. And I think preliminary principle three uh reminds us of that.

SPEAKER_02 45:06

How do we protect the offices of elder, the office of elder as it relates to the temptation of pleasing constituencies? I think that's a common thing that our churches experience um representing these people to the session, and we gotta make sure we keep them happy. Uh how do we as pastors um help our sessions to think differently than the civil realm as it relates to representative leadership?

SPEAKER_01 45:38

Yeah, I mean I I don't know necessarily how to do that. I as you were speaking, I was thinking of you know an example um in the the church I served up in Pennsylvania where um a you know one of the members of our session uh took a you know pretty unpopular opinion on a matter. And I remember having a couple of conversations with him about that. And uh and you know, on one level, uh, you know, my thought was probably not incorrectly, uh, that you know there were there would be certain people in the congregation and they knew the the position that he took, that they might be very upset with him. And it might even be the kind of thing that might cost him an election coming up in a few years or whatever. And uh, you know, to his credit, you know, he said, you know, at that particular meeting, at that particular decision, I had I I had to do, uh I had to follow my own conscience. I had to do what I thought Christ regarded to me to do in that particular situation. I couldn't make that decision on the basis of whether or not you know the people back at Hillcrest would be happy or not. And um, you know, I still wasn't happy with the decision he made. Uh, but I greatly appreciated the sentiment. And like many things in my life, I was I was greatly edified by his wisdom in that. Um and and so I mean that doesn't answer your question as far as like how do we inculcate that into elders uh beyond um you know maybe you know telling those stories, right? I mean, reminding people of the importance of that, uh, you know, pointing people back to uh the fact that, you know, at the end, I mean, this is these are biblical concepts, right? On the last day, I'm gonna have to stand up and I'm gonna have to or or maybe you know kneel and give an account for not just you know how I shepherded Christ's people in my particular church, but also for the ways in which I behaved and acted and voted in uh you know in Presbytery General Assembly committees, etc. And you know, it's not Jesus is not gonna say, well, okay, well, the church, you know, you were trying to please the church, so that's okay. He's not going to care. Uh, he's gonna care about you know whether I was following his word and his law and his commandments. And so um a lot of this is just trying to remind people of you know the genuine nature of that representation that we go for as his ministers, you know, we we go and we minister in his name, not in the name of uh the particular churches where we serve, even though we announce ourselves at the assembly. You know, hey, I'm Steve Tipton from Gulf Coast Presbyterian.

Closing

SPEAKER_03 48:29

Well, I think that's a good place for us to stop. Steve, we are glad that you joined us. We hope you'll come back and join us again sometime soon. As Alexander Campbell would say, this podcast is over. If you're interested in learning more about anything we spoke about, check out the show notes in your podcast player or at Politymatters.org. If you've enjoyed the show, consider following us on Twitter and Facebook at Polity Matters and subscribe in your podcast app of choice. Scott Edberg is a senior minister of Providence PCA in Troy, Illinois, and you can find him on Twitter at Edberg. If you're looking for Jared, he's the pastor of New Life Presbyterian Church of Hopewell Township, and he's on Twitter at Brother Nelson. He's also an editor over at Presbyterian Polity, and you can find him writing around the internet from time to time, so be on the lookout. I serve as the associate pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Cleveland, Mississippi. I'm on Twitter at underscore Ben Ratliff and on sermon audio under Benjamin Ratliff. Say goodbye, gentlemen.