Tag: government

Posted in Moral Issues

The original intent of The Second Amendment

Posted on by James

What was the intent of the authors of The Second Amendment? Would they modify the language if they could’ve foreseen the availability & lethality of modern weapon systems?

Guns are one of the most controversial & polarizing issues in our country. Some people passionately oppose guns; some passionately defend them. While there are undoubtedly corrupt people who seek to disarm citizens to secure their power, the vast majority of gun opponents are sensible & responsible people who are rightly disturbed by gun violence. Likewise, while there are certainly lunatics who would use guns for evil, the vast majority of gun proponents sincerely believe they are a primary means of ensuring personal safety as well as political liberty.

 

The Language of the Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


The central piece of legislation regarding firearms is The Second Amendment to the Constitution. It’s language, albeit aged, is clearly and strong, giving uninfringeable power both to regulated (i.e. exercised) militias (as opposed to a national army) and the individual person. One objection that might be the limiting factor in gun rights is – “What did the founding fathers have in mind?” What kind of weapons did they know about, and would they have wanted the populace to have the high-powered, fast-firing weapons that are available now?

 

 

The Authors of the Second Amendment

What did they have in mind when crafting & ratifying The Second Amendment? That the life of an individual, though it be costly, is a worthy sacrifice for the freedom of the nation.


While it’s enlightening to learn about specific contemporaneous weapon systems (e.g. canons, bombs, the Belton automatic rifle), it’s also revealing to consider the context of the founding fathers. The Second Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) was passed in the first session of the first U.S. Congress. Some of the men of that first U.S. Congress were delegates to the First Continental Congress which adopted the Declaration of Independence. When they signed the Declaration of Independence they were putting their lives in jeopardy. If captured by the English, they would have been executed for treason. Other congressmen fought in the War for Independence – voluntarily laying their life on the line for the chance at freedom. Without exception every congressmen suffered personal loss in the war. The hearts of American Revolutionaries is well summarized in the closing line of the Declaration of Independence, “…We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

What did the founding fathers have in mind when crafting & ratifying The Second Amendment? That the life of an individual, though it be costly, is a worthy sacrifice for the freedom of the nation. That value wasn’t just rhetoric; it was forged in the war that vaporized possessions and that robbed parents of their sons, children of their dads, and wives of their husbands. They experienced the steep price of freedom (from tyrants foreign & domestic) and boldly legislated their belief that freedom is worth the cost.

I’m not saying all gun legislation is bad. I’m suggesting that we place a high premium on liberty, and we thank God for it. I’m suggesting that we hold our nation’s founders in high esteem, and we critically examine each legislation, policy or directive that affects it. I’m suggesting that we soberly count the cost of freedom and find it worthy. 

 

I want to know your thoughts:

  • Where would you draw the line for what weapons are available to the public?
  • And what legislative boundaries could be enacted without infringing on the rights of the people?
  • What (if any) role should militias play in our society?
Posted in Bible Doctrine, Ministry

Who runs the church – Part 2

Posted on by James

I recently wrote on the subject of church authority. You can read the entire post here. The essence was: God designed the church to be led by a team of elders (AKA pastors), with one leader of leaders. The post was supplemented with a warning against a common distortion of Elder Rule – the malpractice of labeling non-pastors as elders. 

From that post I received some astute (and kind) questions concerning the definition of “ordained elder.” First, I want to mention that I appreciate feedback – especially of the courteous variety. The two primary questions are “How do you define an ORDAINED ELDER?” and “Would Presbyterian Ruling Elders qualify as ORDAINED ELDERS?” In this post I intend to address these two questions and clarify the definition of ordained elder. 

 

How do you define an ordained elder?

The Bible uses the term ELDER synonymously and interchangeably with SHEPHERD/PASTOR (1 Peter 5:1-4) and BISHOP (Titus 1:5-7). Elder, Pastor, and Bishop are terms for the same office (this is not surprising as the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, Israel, the church, and the Scriptures each hold several monikers).  There can be no Biblical ELDER who is not also a PASTOR and BISHOP. In cases where a church has elders who are not given the governing authority or teaching authority or ministerial authority, that church dangerously distorted the title and office of ELDER.

Additionally, it is beneficial to consider the Biblical description of the calling & ministry of an ELDER. A Biblical ELDER must:

  • Be called by the Spirit through a driving desire for ministry. 
  • Be ordained by the church planter and/or existing group of elders of the local church (i.e. presbytery). No church elder in Scripture was ordained or ratified by a denomination, association, or central church. 
  • Be primarily occupied with the ministry of the Word and prayer. Not just tasked with administrative boards, policies, councils, and committees but tasked with watching for the souls of the members, with protecting the flock from false doctrine, and with correcting sin in the church body.

 An ELDER’s calling & ministry must be consistent with the Scriptural description of the office. When a church gives the title of ELDER to men with no calling or with only operational responsibilities, that church has misplaced the title of ELDER.

 

Would Presbyterian Ruling Elders qualify as ordained elders?

The inquirer hails from a Presbyterian (PCA specifically) church where Elders must be men, meet the character requirements of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and be examined and trained. Being in no way an authority on that brand of Presbyterian ecclesiology, I read the denomination’s Book of Church Order. While somewhat more Scriptural than some Presbyterian variants, I conclude that PCA differ markedly from the Biblical office of Elders.  

The PCA acknowledges that Elder, Pastor, & Bishop are synonymous, yet it still creates two distinct orders of elders – also called Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders. More than a mere difference in their area of leadership, the PCA also sets up two orders that are substantially different from each other. While some suggest (inconclusively) that 1 Timothy 5:17 implies some elders are not teaching elders, there is no Biblical ground for a lower order of elders who have different callings, ordination or authority. 

  • Teaching Elders are gifted and called to ministry by the Holy Spirit. PCA recognizes no such gifting or call for Ruling Elders.
  • The “Presbytery” (by which they mean denominational district leaders not the leadership of the local church) is comprised of all Teaching Elders and only a fraction of Ruling Elders.
  • Teaching Elders are ordained, installed, and removed by the “Presbytery” (denominational district leaders); Ruling Elders are controlled by local churches.
  • If there is no Teaching Elder in a local church, and no “Stated Supply” (substitute) can be found, the “Presbytery” (denominational district leaders) may authorize a Ruling Elder to have limited pastoral service (that of Teaching Elder)… BUT for no longer than a year.

The answer to “Would Presbyterian Ruling Elders qualify as ordained elders?” is no – because neither the churches nor the Elders themselves see them as Pastors. They are seen as many Baptist deacons are seen – decision-making laymen… but not Pastors.  The Biblical model of church polity vests authority not in a central church, denomination or association but in the elders of an autonomous local church – whether they are vocational, bi-vocational or tentmakers.

 

Why does it matter?

First, allow me to say that I rejoice to hear about people who have been born again and are serving our Lord Jesus, and I have no animosity toward churches of another denomination or church polity. With that said, God has clearly vested church authority in a team of pastors (elders); Dangers exist in usurping authority from the place where God entrusted it – whether that be placing it in the hands of a congregational vote, deacons, a single pastor, or board of “elders” who aren’t really pastors.

But most important to me, I want to be faithful to establish the authority of our church plant in the most Biblical way possible. This church is Christ’s body; He’s the Lord; He’s the Chief Shepherd. I cede all my plans to His design.

Posted in Bible Doctrine, Ministry

Who runs the church?

Posted on by James

Who holds authority in the church? Obviously, Jesus is the Head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23. Colossians 1:18). He is the Lord and is the Chief Shepherd of the church (1 Peter 5:2-4). But the record of Scripture shows  that God delegates authority to humans – to governments, to husbands, to parents, and to masters. The question, more specifically posed, is “To which humans has God vested the authority of the church?” There are a variety of models of church governments (AKA ecclesiastical polity) – pastoral authority, congregational vote, denominational rule, deacon-led, elder rule, or hybrids thereof (there are more formal names, but these need less defining).

Wrestling with obscure issues is one of the thrills of church planting. I strive to lay a foundation that most closely reflects the Biblical command and precedent because it is where we stray from God’s instruction that we create the most significant problems. In this post, I will present the Scriptural basis for rule by a team of elders (i.e. pastors).

The Design of Elder Rule

Let’s be frank. In the Bible, churches were ruled by ordained elders (pastors); deacons were not authoritative decision-makers but servants; congregations didn’t vote; churches were autonomous not ruled by a central church; and churches were self-governing not ruled by a denomination. Some of these unbiblical models were formed as man’s solution to pastoral failure, but it is never safe to usurp authority from the place where God has placed it. These models have resulted in problems of greater magnitude than the original problem they sought to prevent.

The names of elders. The Bible applies three names to the same office of church leader.

  • Elder indicates a spiritual MATURITY. This is the name that is used most frequently in Scripture yet is the most misunderstood. He is NOT a deacon, an old person, or a faithful lay person elected to a decision-making council. An elder is an ordained pastor. 
  • Pastor indicates a shepherd’s CUSTODY. Pastor literally means shepherd (stemming from the same word as pasture), who is to lead, feed and protect the flock. Ironically, the title most commonly used modernly is used least in Scripture. The title is only used once (Ephesians 4:11); of 17 of the 18 times the Greek word is used it is translated shepherd. The term shepherd (pastor) is used interchangeably with elder in 1 Peter 5:1-4.
  • Bishop indicates a sober RESPONSIBILITY.  Meaning “overseer,” bishop is used in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, and Philippians 1:1 (which names both offices of the church). As the name implies, he is to govern the church. Contrary to its use in high church, a bishop in the Bible is the leader of a local church – not a position over multiple churches. The term bishop is used interchangeably with elder in Titus 1:5-7.

The plurality of elders. God did not intend for a church to be governed by a single pastor but by a team of elders (pastors). When God turned to the Gentiles following the stoning of Stephen, the church at Jerusalem was ruled not by apostles but by a team of elders (Acts 11:30. 21:18). Paul’s church plants were led by a team of elders (Acts 14:23. Acts 20:17. 1 Timothy 5:17-20. 1 Thessalonians 5:12).

The leader of elders. It is natural & inevitable that there be differences and disagreements within the team of elders, and there is a need for a leader of leaders – one who has the final say. Acts 15 perfectly describes the Biblical working of a team of pastors. There are tough decisions to be made. They each speak and hear one another. Finally, one elder (James the brother of Jesus) gives the sentence (Acts 15:13-20). This design is implemented through pastoral-team authority with a lead pastor who has the final say. In our church’s bylaws, the lead pastor carries 49% of every vote, and the remaining pastors carry a combined 51%.

**BONUS – As a church plant, I wanted to reflect the external authority Paul retained in the churches he planted – in person and by letters he dealt with false doctrine, false teaching, sin, restoration, and even removed sitting elders. We did this by allowing one of two specific people to be an external elder – the pastor of our mother church or the church planter (should I leave).

The Error of Elder Rule

An increasingly prevalent error is for churches to employ the Biblical model (Elder Rule) with unbiblical definitions. Let me explain… I recently had a conversation with a fellow-believer from a nearby church. He passionately described the disasters he’d experienced with deacon-led churches and excitedly told me how the church was changing their bylaws to be ruled by a board of elders. Knowing the typical pitfalls, I pressed on who the elders were; some would be former deacons; others would be Sunday School teachers or members of other boards. My dear brother is going to be in worse shape than ever. In effect, he has duplicated a deacon board and compounded the problem by attributing the title “elder” to non-pastors. Before he gave authority of elders (pastors) to unordained men (deacons); now he gives the authority & title of elder to unordained men.  

The error of “elder rule” is that the title elder is misdefined. Because myriad heresies are born of misdefinition of Biblical terms, it’s imperative to allow the Bible to define itself. And elder is a pastor.  To avoid confusion, I often use terms like pastor-led, pastoral authority.

Your thoughts:

What experiences have you had with the different church governments?
What benefits or problems did that style of polity bring?