PCA

It's not every day a pastor of the Presbyterian Church in America is put to death. But now it has happened twice in successive Septembers.

September 3, 2003, Paul Hill, one-time PCA and OPC pastor and graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary, was executed by the State of Florida for the killing of abortionist John Britton and bodyguard James Barrett in 1993.

His death passed without comment within the PCA and Reformed Seminary communities. No mention of his execution (or connection to the PCA) was made on the PCA web site. No emails asking prayer for his wife and young children made the rounds of PCA presbyteries. To the best of my knowledge, no PCA church volunteered to hold a memorial service for his grieving family.

A student at Reformed Theological Seminary's Jackson campus told me the day following Hill's execution that he was unaware of a single official (or unofficial) reference to Hill's death on the Reformed campus; the execution of the school's most famous graduate passed like a thief in the night. It was as though he had already ceased to exist for the Reformed community; having repudiated him in life we ignored him in death. He died unlamented, unnoticed, not even remarked upon as a negative example.

September 22, 2004, a PCA pastor disappears leaving behind suicide notes. His body is found September 29. His death--his murder--comes by his own hand. Yet how different our reaction to this death....

On its home page the church he pastored ("...the flagship Presbyterian Church in America congregation" within its region) "praises God for his life and that he is now in God's loving hands." Messages of condolence and words of love flow from throughout the PCA. A large memorial service is planned. A member of the church's staff is quoted in the local paper: "We trust in God and know that he's there with him."

Is it sin to kill man? Is it truly always murder to kill extra-judicially what is created in God's image? If so, then are some extra-judicial killings more sanctified than others? Should we refrain from speaking against extra-judicial killing whenever the murderer is also the murdered? Could it be that fear of man drives our voice in these matters--fear of the consequences of examining the underlying issues in either of these deaths? Why the disparity in our treatment of these two men, both of whom were at one time PCA pastors, both of whom put men to death, both of whom died as a consequence of their own extra-judicial acts of killing?

Praise God that His grace is sufficient to reclaim killers, for the apostle Paul and King David who give us evidence of God's abounding grace to killers. But where is the Church's "NO" to the sin of suicide? If we have said amen to the execution of Paul Hill, should we not be equally careful to note the sin of the second PCA pastor before speaking words of comfort and granting what appears to be absolution of his sin?

A father of our presbytery has fallen. Pastor Petros Roukas, who served as senior pastor of Tates Creek Presbyterian Church, took his own life leaving behind hundreds of souls who looked to him as their shepherd, his fellow elders of Ohio Valley Presbytery (PCA); and most sadly, his wife and their two children.

Meeting just now in our fall stated meeting, Ohio Valley Presbytery adopted the following memorial. Please note, particularly, the words in the final paragraph concerning the sin of suicide and the hope, even in the face of this sin, that we have in the blood of Jesus Christ. (For those struggling for a biblical understanding of suicide, I commend these two sermons by the early nineteenth century Princeton Seminary professor and presbyterian pastor, Samuel Miller.)

Memorial for Pastor Petros Roukas Ohio Valley Presbytery 10/09/04

The teaching elders, ruling elders, and churches of Ohio Valley Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America are saddened by the death of our friend and brother Petros Roukas on September 22, 2004. We intercede before the throne of grace for God's comfort and strength for his wife Jan and children Nicholas and Elizabeth and for his parents Konstantine and Evangelia Roukas in Greece. We also pray for the congregation of Tates Creek Presbyterian Church in Lexington, Kentucky where he was serving at the time of his death as well as the previous congregations he served - Westminster PCA in Muncie, Indiana and Calvary PCA in Bricktown, New Jersey.

Petros was born in Greece in 1953 and received a Bachelors of Religious Education at Reformed Bible College in Grand Rapids, Michigan and a Masters of Divinity from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. He was ordained in 1978 by the Midwest Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod. He served faithfully at Calvary PCA from 1978-1984; Westminster PCA from 1984-1999; and Tates Creek PCA from 1999-2004. His pastoral ministry was marked by effective preaching and teaching of the gospel, helpful application of the gospel in pastoral counseling settings, strengthening the shepherding ministry of ruling elders, building community in the congregation, and leading numerous cross--cultural mission teams--especially to Jamaica and Mexico.

Throughout his twenty years in Ohio Valley Presbytery of the PCA (previously part of Great Lakes Presbytery) he served on numerous committees. Especially noteworthy was his long term service on the Shepherding Committee where he helped numerous pastors and congregations look to Christ for both the purity and unity of the church.

While the tragic events surrounding his death at his own hand were certainly related to his long struggle with depression--they were also what Petros himself called "sinful and inexcusable." While Petros' grip on the truths of the gospel he preached and ministered so faithfully grew weak in his final actions, we are confident that God did not lose His grip on Petros. We hold that Paul's words in Romans 8 that "if Christ is for us, who can be against us" and "nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus" apply to God's adopted children--even when they are the very ones who are against themselves. As elders of Ohio Valley Presbytery--may God give us the grace to go to Jesus as we are weary and heavy burdened and may God also give us the grace to not only minister to others but to receive ministry from one another as well.

(Memorial gifts, including financial support for Mrs. Roukas, may be sent to Tates Creek Presbyterian Church at 3900 Rapid Run Drive, Lexington, KY 40515.)

Following last week's memorial service for PCA pastor Petros Roukas I received a copy of the text of Bryan Chapell's funeral sermon titled, "Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit." The sermon, though well-intentioned, was a gloss on the first beatitude (Matthew 5:3).

Mr. Chapell did speak of Petros's suicide as sin. And though Mr. Chapell rightfully held out biblical hope for Petros's salvation, he spoke clearly of the act of suicide as sinful, an act of Biblical fidelity for which I am grateful.

Yet, poverty of spirit is fundamentally different from depression. Poverty of spirit, in fact, is depression's cure and the answer to the suicide's despair. And though it is understandable that Mr. Chapell would wish to give comfort and hope on such an occasion, his use of this text as the basis of his message was disingenuous.

I suspect Mr. Chapell knows that "poverty of spirit" is not the kind of hopelessness which drives us to despair of God's faithfulness and thus to make violent end of ourselves, and had Mr. Chapell not seen fit to permit the publication of his sermon I would have thought these things privately without commenting on them here.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chapell has chosen not only to permit public dissemination of the text of his sermon, but the editorial staff of By Faith Online, the Presbyterian Church in America's online news site, recently made his sermon the most prominent link on their home page.

It would be fitting to memorialize a martyr who died by faith this way. But this was suicide. This was sin. And in his sermon Mr. Chapell comes perilously close to describing such faithless despair as "blessed" of God. And now this sermon has been published. I wish it had not. I wish By Faith Online had not given it such prominent treatment.

But it must now be said that Mr. Chapell's sermon is misleading, and that despite his looking into the pit by proclaiming suicide a sin in his sermon, he did not look long enough or hard enough, and whatever wounds he healed by preaching thus are likely healed lightly rather than fully. I say this because Scripture is clear: "The just shall live by faith."

In the meantime, what is poverty of spirit? According to Thomas Watson:

In a previous post, Woe to Those at Ease in Zion, I argued evangelical Americans are "at ease in Zion;" that the $1,000,000,000 in sales of the Left Behind books and related paraphernalia is evidence of that ease; that it is contrary to Scripture for Christians to anticipate the Second Coming of our Lord with no fear; and that the bloodshed that consumes our land, most recently evidenced by the judicial execution of Terri Schiavo, ought to make us tremble at our knowledge of God's holiness and justice and the prospects for our nation.

In response to my post, the case has been made that Christians are to look forward with joy to the Second Coming; that evangelical Christians are, in fact, being faithful as salt and light in these United States; and "that it is unreasonable to claim that popular evangelicalism in America is not bearing fruits in concrete political action."

Well, of course "concrete political action" has never been my barometer of Christians being salt and light, although clearly it is one part of it. When our nation slides towards Sodom, it's my conviction that slide has much more to do with Christians being unfaithful at church and home than our failure to vote, to write letters, or to run for office. In other words, my central conviction concerning our nation's decline, while claiming a majority of her citizens to be born again, is that we have failed to carry our profession of faith into a self-sacrificing confession of faith.

And in this unfaithfulness we pastors have led the way. Our pulpit and pastoral ministries have not been characterized by what the Apostle Paul said characterized his own: namely, that we never failed to say anything to our sheep that God commanded us to say; that we warned our sheep day and night with tears; that we were faithful guardians, particularly against the false shepherds who arise from our own numbers within the church; and that the blood of none of our sheep is on our hands (Acts 20).

So let me ask: does Amos have any usefulness to us today, and if so is that use only for unbelievers? What is the meaning of this prophesy being addressed to those "at ease in Zion?" And if I'm to be granted that those "in Zion" in the time of Amos were God's covenant people, is there something about the New Covenant that justifies God's covenant people in the Chuch of Jesus Christ dismissing every failure, warning, and punishment of God's covenant people in the Old Testament? Has not the Holy Spirit said to us that all "these things (Old Testament failures and punishments) happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall" (1Corinthians 10:11,12).

Although I'm sure there are many ready to make the argument, it simply cannot seriously be maintained that the world of evangelicals is not at ease in Zion...

(Note from Tim Bayly: Often I get calls from pastors and elders asking if I can give them help working through the issue of what work is and is not appropriate for men and women in their congregation. Five years ago Church of the Good Shepherd adopted such a statement drafted for us by one of our pastors at the time, Rev. David Wegener (a fellow member of Ohio Valley Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America).

Such a call came again this morning from a fellow teaching elder of the PCA, so I'm taking this opportunity to post the statement here for the good of the church at large. If our good readers know of another church statement that would be useful, also, and that honors the unequivocal teaching of Scripture that is patriarchy, please feel free to post that statement, or a link to it, in the comments below. Thank you.)

Church of the Good Shepherd's Understanding of the Biblical Roles of Men and Woman in Congregational Life
Adopted by the Session (Board of Elders) of Church of the Good Shepherd November, 1999

1. All men and women are equally created in the image of God and therefore are equally worthy of our honor and respect...

Cows with guns. Thanks to DarjeelinGirl.

Here's the front panel of a heavily-reproduced brochure advocating the Presbyterian Church in America's new monthly magazine, By Faith.

Notice the young man on the lower left looking bemused over his harmonica. Recognize him? Here's a closeup if you can't see him in the larger view...

The PCA such a coo` denominizzles. (Courtesy Gizoogles.)

Another twenty years and we'll have Snoop Dogg on our marketing pieces.

Nathan wrestling last year. Click image to see blood.

My eldest son, Nathan, wrestles for a small Christian school. Wrestlers from his school can usually be distinguished at meets by their t-shirts which have Ephesians 6:12 printed on their backs, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

I was thinking about Nate's wrestling team as I read the most recent issue of the Presbyterian Church in America's By Faith magazine which focuses its "Arts and Culture" section on Briarwood Presbyterian Church's Briarwood Ballet dance ministry whose two performing companies, Ballet Exaltation and Immanuel, "perform for various schools, churches and civic organizations across the nation and world."

Which, to be honest, sounds, in parts, like a worthy program. What could be wrong, at least theoretically, with teaching young women physical grace and discipline? Of course there are potential negatives: prurience, pride, a focus on physical beauty (which could lead to further sins such as anorexia....). Yet I suspect few would dismiss this as a potentially positive ministry solely for these reasons.

But then, there are the aspirations of those who lead the program...

• "When I dance or teach, heaven appears for a brief time... I don't know how else to describe it. It's euphoric. It's not an escape--it's a taste of the eternal that I don't get to express in any other way."

• "Whether believing dancers are performing a 'Christian allegory ballet,' or dancing a small part in Sleeping Beauty, the gospel can be seen through them... 'God has a way of making His truth known through us... As His image-bearers, we present that truth in whatever we do.'"

• "...one way of restoring the art of dance is for the church to 'focus on sending artists into the world instead of pulling artists out of the world. Dancers might feel that if they're not performing something with an overt Christian message, then they're not bringing glory to God. The truth is, we have the ability to glorify God in everything that we do--whether we're dancing the lead role in the New York City Ballet, or vacuuming the house.'"

Phil Henry, a Presbyterian Church in America pastor serving in Tucson, Arizona, has a good post critiquing an article in the latest issue of our denominational magazine, byFaith. Written by Carolyn Custis James, the piece is titled, "A CHALLENGE FACING THE PCA IS HOW TO PROFIT FROM THE GROWING POPULATION OF FEMALE THEOLOGIANS: Women Theologians: A SPIRITUAL GOLDMINE FOR THE CHURCH." And yes, that's a long and loud title, but without the use of small caps, that's about what it looks like.

There's a ton that could be said about this (and other) pieces in this issue of byFaith, but I grow weary. Pastor Henry is a younger man, though, and so you might want to watch him tilt at windmills.

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. (1Peter 3:1-6)

David and I have mentioned our interest in the proceedings of the "Gender and the Church" conference going on this weekend at our denominational college, Covenant College. Sponsored by Covenant's Kaleo Center, the keynote speakers are Carolyn Custis James and her husband, Frank. The conference web site provides the following credentials for Mrs. James:

Carolyn Custis James is an international conference speaker for churches, colleges, seminaries and other Christian organizations. She is a new voice in Christian publishing with a strong, affirming message for women... Carolyn is President of Whitby Forum, a ministry organization dedicated to helping women go deeper in their relationship with God and to serve Him alongside their brothers in the faith... She is a founder and sponsor (along with Reformed Theological Seminary and Campus Crusade for Christ International) of Synergy conferences--a national gathering of women in seminary and in vocational ministries... During the years between seminary and her present ministries, she had her own business as a computer software developer in Oxford, England. She and her husband Frank (President of Reformed Theological Seminary-- Orlando ) live in Orlando, Florida. They have one college-age daughter.

What "strong, affirming message for women" does Mrs. James provide that is "dedicated to helping women go deeper in their relationship with God... to serve Him alongside their brothers in the faith?" Here's an excerpt from last night's Bible message by Mrs. James...

Carolyn Custis James:
With the educational and professional advancement of women today, many women come to our churches and wonder why the secular workplace values what they bring to the table, but the church shows so little interest.

Scripture:
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.
(1 Corinthians 1:26-29)

John Calvin (on the above text):
By the choosing of the poor, and the foolish, and the ignoble, he means, that God has preferred them before the great, and the wise, and the noble. For it would not have sufficed, for beating down the arrogance of the flesh, if God had placed them all upon a level. Hence, those who appeared to excel he put in the background, in order that he might thoroughly abase them.

Carolyn Custis James:
It is not overstating things to say that becoming a good theologian is how a woman fulfills her highest destiny--her calling to know and be like Jesus. This is truly the essence of a woman's calling.

Scripture:
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. (Titus 2:3-5)

John Calvin (on the above text):
In short, he wishes women to be restrained, by conjugal love and affection for their children, from giving themselves up to licentious attachments, he wishes them to rule their own house in a sober and orderly manner, forbids them to wander about in public places, bids them be chaste, and at the same time modest, so as to be subject to the dominion of their husbands; for those who excel in other virtues sometimes take occasion from them to act haughtily, so as to be disobedient to their husbands.

Tim Bayly:
If all through her article, Carolyn Custis James is using the word "theologian" simply as a placeholder for someone who seeks to know Christ and to make Him known, who would argue with her? But she equivocates, using 'theologian' also in opposition to nursery workers, those practicing hospitality, those decorating and setting tables, and so on...

Note from Tim Bayly: Those clicking into this particular post from some other blog need to be aware that this is only one in a long line of posts on the subject of the particular theological commitments of Carolyn Custis James concerning the nature and meaning of sexuality. The other posts may be found on this blog's main page by searchin in the google search box on the left margin a little down the page. It would be helpful to read them all.

One reader points us to the following bio Mrs. James' provides us on her own blogger information page found here (but since scrubbed from that page).

Carolyn Custis James

Speaker, Author and Consultant

Author of When Life and Beliefs Collide: How Knowing God Makes a Difference

Author of Lost Women of the Bible: Finding Strength and Significance Through Their Stories (forthcoming September 2005).

Consulting editor for Zondervan's Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament

Consultant for the Jesus Film for women.

BA in Sociology, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA

MA in Biblical Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

www.whitbyforum.com

Carolyn is her husband's favorite theologian. She is not a kitchen wife. She does not keep house, cook, clean or sew, but she reads an awful lot and often talks to women (and sometimes men) from all over the world about women's struggles within the evangelical church. Lately, she has been reading a lot on the plight of women in the Middle East. She helped establish Synergy Conferences for women seminarians and women in vocational ministries, which is sponsored by her ministry organization, Whitby Forum, in alliance with Campus Crusade for Christ International and Reformed Theological Seminary/Orlando.

The oft-repeated suggestion in comments on this site that the teaching of Carolyn Custis James remains firmly grounded in PCA teaching and Biblical orthodoxy runs headlong into this powerful counter-argument....

The best-known Evangelical feminist/egalitarian organization, Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), also claims Mrs. James's teachings in support of their own agenda.

Not only are two books and an audio tape by Ms James sold on CBE's web-based bookstore, Mrs. James's argument for translating ezer "warrior" are reproduced and footnoted as "an especially good recent study of this word" in an article critiquing "Complementarian Interpretations" of Scripture on CBE's site.

In fact, it would seem Mrs. James's etymological argument against the traditional interpretation of ezer ("helpmeet") amounts to little more than a stock egalitarian/feminist interpretation to which Mrs. James adds the interpretive gloss "warrior." CBE's egalitarian manifesto (Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality) says of ezer...

2. The Bible teaches that woman and man were created for full and equal partnership. The word "helper" (ezer), used to designate woman in Genesis 2:18, refers to God in most instances of Old Testament usage (e.g. 1Sam 7:12; Ps 121:1-2). Consequently the word conveys no implication whatsoever of female subordination or inferiority.

It's possible Mrs. James's books could appear on CBE's web site without her knowledge or permission. It's much less likely that an audio tape of Mrs. James would be sold in CBE's web store against her knowledge or will. Finally, similarities between Mrs. James's arguments and stock egalitarian fare are so far-reaching that CBE plainly views Mrs. James as an ally. At this point it's hard to conceive of anything other than willful credulity or dissembling standing behind a continued claim by her apologists that Mrs. James's teaching hews faithfully to Biblical doctrine or PCA practice.

Carolyn Custis James' association with evangelical feminists opposed to the teaching of Scripture goes back several years, at least. She was one of the principal speakers at the Christians for Biblical Equality conference held in Orlando in 2003. Here is the list of speakers and representative topics:

Find out why the devil hates women in ministry, how to be a wild-hearted woman, and what the Bible says about God's gender at the 2003 conference in Orlando. An all-star cast of speakers awaits you, such as David Hamilton, Kevin Giles, Linda Belleville, Lee Grady, Funmi Para-Mallam, Carolyn Custis James, and John Kohlenberger. Our conference will explore the theme, "The Priesthood of All Believers: Serving Christ as a Global Community.

Anyone who doubts that Christians for Biblical Equality is an organization in principle opposed to the teaching of God's Word concerning sexuality has only to go here and read their confession of faith to know who Carolyn Custis James is making common cause with.

It is impossible to support Christians for Biblical Equality's confession of faith and the Westminster Standards. It is impossible to be an adherent to CBE's false doctrine and to Scripture's true doctrine of sexuality. It is impossible for a woman or man to subscribe to the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture and to the doctrines of Christians for Biblical Equality. To illustrate, here are a couple excerpts from CBE's confession of faith...

As the dialogue on this blog concerning Covenant's College's Kaleo Center's conference on gender and the church comes to an end, a few observations are in order.

It is a great disadvantage to do the work of professing and fathering at a distance and by E-mail. Covenant students need on-site professors who will profess the biblical doctrine of sexuality with joyful abandon--not parsimoniously with a defensive attitude saying more what that doctrine doesn't mean than what it does mean.

These professors are physically present, and therefore in the perfect position to answer the question, "What is submission?"

Their answer should not come only in a classroom, but also in their homes around the dining room table. It's there in the hurlyburly of life that submission will become clear to Matthew, Heather, Stephanie, and hundreds of others who arrived at college thinking that feminism has questions that only twenty or thirty year olds hear.

When Covenant's Kaleo Center invites the James to campus to deal with the much-controverted question of authority and submission in marriage, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the signs and know where the Kaleo Center is trying to lead the campus. The headliner is a woman and she is approved of and promoted by the main evangelical feminist organization? Well now, let me see: I wonder what that means?

Not to put too fine a point on it, I think it means that she ought not to speak at Covenant since every confessional commitment of Covenant's ecclesiastical authority is opposed to the teaching of this evangelical feminist organization on the meaning and purpose of sexuality. Yes, to me it's that simple: Carolyn Custis James' books are sold by the organization and they use her to speak at their national conference so we cannot trust Mrs. James to teach our students the meaning and purpose of Christian marriage, sexuality, submission, authority, etc.

But some point out that while she was at Covenant Mrs. James took a second to affirm that she was willing to submit to Scripture's teaching concerning men alone being called to serve as pastors and elders, so she's obviously orthodox in her doctrine of sexuality.

Maybe an analogy will help make my point.

Let's say by some perverse error I was invited by the administration to be the keynote speaker at a conference on gender and the church at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, or Wheaton College where the community ethos is overwhelmingly feminist. And it was clear by the administration's invitation which direction they wanted to move their institution although, of course, nothing was ever said directly to me about their goal.

Two members of Christ the Word who recently returned from a trip to Africa tell me that while there they heard a visiting PCA pastor speak of 85 "Federal Vision" churches he and a group of like-minded friends hope to excise from the PCA.

I'm intrigued to learn there are 85 discernibly "Federal Vision" churches in the PCA and I'm curious to know how the number was arrived at. Does admiring the ministry of Doug Wilson make one a "Federal Vision" proponent? If so, Christ the Word is probably goners in the PCA if I continue to enjoy the privilege of being her pastor when these men achieve their goal.

I'm also intrigued that an ad hoc group of PCA pastors has identified 85 "Federal Vision" churches requiring removal without publicly identifying themselves or publicly acknowledging the breadth of their goals. It's possible the pastor was exaggerating--blowing ecclesiastical smoke. Yet my friends think not. He repeated his statements several times, never with any lack of conviction.

On the whole, Tim and I tend to honor those who take God's truth seriously enough to work to purify Christ's Church of dangerously false teaching. Whether "Federal Vision" theology is cohesive enough or sufficiently heterodox to require such opposition we're uncertain. What is certain is that God's truth prospers in the light, not in smoke-filled rooms and alleyways.

Which brings me to a recurringly troubling aspect of life in the Presbyterian Church in America.

On every side there appear to be clandestine groups of like-minded friends bound together by secret communications. The existence of such groups becomes especially clear when looking through blog referral lists. At times it's quite obvious that PCA-based discussion boards are steering readers to blog entries, but access to the referring site is limited to members and accessible only through password-protected accounts.

Friends who have participated in such groups tell me that not only is membership often by invitation only, but a commitment to confidentiality about discussion items is sometimes required as well.

It's hard to conceive of such secrecy as a good thing. There are times for confidentiality within pastoral circles, but the existence of whole cliques whose agendas and members are closely-guarded secrets runs contrary to the ministry of Christ Who reproached His captors by asking if He had operated in secrecy that they came to take Him at the dead of night....

Excerpts of interest from Covenant College's Fall 2005 chapel schedule:

August

25 Dr. Niel Nielson, President, Covenant College (First normal chapel of the year. No special designation for chapel or speaker.)

26 Convocation - Dr. Reg McLelland, Professor of Philosophy, Covenant College (The first special type of chapel--a "convocation," perhaps because more academic in focus?)

29 Assembly with Congressman Zach Wamp, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. (Second special type of chapel--"assembly." Address is by a political leader, and thus, I suspect, the reason it's called an "assembly"--differentiating it from a normal chapel session.)

30 Student Development Assembly (Again, an "assembly" marking less-spiritual content, I suspect.)

31 Rev. Randy Nabors, Covenant College Trustee, New City Fellowship, Chattanooga, TN (Typical chapel. No special designation.)

Now, having dealt with types of chapels and nomenclature, the following sessions were interesting:

September

12 Camille Hallstrom, Associate Professor of Communication, Covenant College (Woman drama professor, no special designation for chapel session. Apparently a regular chapel with a regular speaker.)

Reading through the overtures and communications that have been sent to the next, thirty-fourth, General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, I was encouraged to see this Advice from Calvary Presbytery in response to the Strategic Plan this assembly is being called to adopt. Calvary Presbytery's judgments strike me as wise and I encourage teaching and ruling elders within the PCA to read the presbytery's communication carefully. In fact, it's my hope that the assembly will respond to the Strategic Plan, both positively and negatively, as Calvary Presbytery advises.

More specifically, I am in agreement with item number 7 in the Advice from Calvary Presbytery in which they oppose the Strategic Planning Committee's proposal for a complete restructing of the general assembly in which the Bills and Overtures Committee would take over much of the assembly's work:

Presbytery inform Strategic Planning Committee that we are against (their) proposed changes to Rules of Assembly Operations 11-4, 14, 7-2, 10-5, 12-3 (to structure a larger Bills and Overtures Committee and new arrangements for Committee on Constitutional Business and the rules relating to them).

Rationale: The presbytery is of the opinion that the remedy ("delegating debate" to a "Super Bills and Overtures Committee" etc.) does not effectively answer the problems of greater ruling elder attendance and participation; does not contribute to a more effective participation of delegates to GA; does not really address the goals of the Strategic Planning Committee.

Women and children first?

July 6-24, the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University put the following question to 1,010 men and women:

You may recall that male passengers on the Titanic agreed to give up their places on the lifeboats for women and children. If there were a similar situation today, do you think men should be expected to die and allow women to live, or is this an old fashioned idea?

Among men, 63% of men agreed to die for women; 23% thought the idea was old fashioned; and 14% couldn't make up their minds. "Quick, the boat's sinking, Mr. Bayly: What'll it be--you or your wife?"

"Well um... Ahem... On the one hand..."

Among women, though, 43% said men shouldn't bother sacrificing for them while only 39% still thought it was good for men to give up their spots in the lifeboats for women; 18% were undecided. "Quick, the boat's sinking, Mrs. Bayly: What'll it be--you or your husband?"

"Well um... Ahem... I don't know--Tim's the man of the house; let him decide."

We all know the world has lost its way on the meaning of sexuality, but what about the church? I'm reminded of two experiences in my own denomination, the PCA, where the state of affairs became clear.

Several years ago, I served on a study committee of our general assembly assigned to produce a study paper on women in combat. As you might guess, I was agin' it but there were a number of pastors and elders on the committee who would have fit right into this poll. Some were military officers (chaplains, sadly), while others were pastors of local churches. Just short of half our committee believed..

In her article cited in an earlier post, Anne Graham Lotz is pandering to some of the more ungodly prejudices of our culture by attacking the church for not being biblical on the meaning and purpose of sexuality. What she really means, though, is not that the Church isn't biblical, but that it's not enlightened or progressive--it's not, as they say, "evolved."

Before the watching world, Ms. Lotz argues that those who maintain distinctions between the sexes (other than those irrepressible biological and physiological ones) are bound for extinction as her new age of feminist gender equity finally dawns among the slowpoke people of God.

One looks in vain for any recognition on Ms. Lotz's part that she's thrown the entire history of the Christian Church's doctrine of sexuality in the dumpster. Likely she'd deny this, pointing to her strong stand against sodomy or divorce as proof that, where the rubber meets the road, she's rock solid on sexuality.

Yet the order of God's creation prior to the Fall is as clear concerning the sinfulness of women exercising authority over men as it is concerning the sinfulness of men having sex with men, or as it is concerning divorce. The authoritative primacy of man over woman, the heterosexual limits of physical intimacy, and the evil of divorce are each equally and undeniably established by our Creator in the Garden of Eden, and the rest of Scripture only reinforces God's Edenic order.

Asked whether divorce is right or wrong, Jesus responded by going back to Eden, prior to the Fall, making it clear that God's order from the beginning was heterosexual, monogamous, and lifelong:

(Jesus) answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Asked whether it was proper for women to exercise authority over men, the Apostle Paul responded by going back to Eden, prior to the Fall, making it clear that God's order from the beginning was neither matriarchal nor egalitarian, but patriarchal:

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:12, 13)

Do Ms. Lotz and other evangelical feminists really think they can pick and choose between the details of the sexual order God established in Eden which is reinforced repeatedly in the sacred words of Scripture?

"Let's see, I'll have some heterosexuality and monogamy, please. But no patriarchy today, thank you."

Well, any simpleton can see what's happened, and therefore what's coming.

What's happened? Well, for many years, now, evangelicals have lived in an increasingly egalitarian and feminist culture, and that culture has won us over--all that's left is the mop-up operation. Few of us would be willing to preach or listen to the sermons of past centuries our fathers in the faith preached concerning male authority or female deference and submission. And structurally, our practice bears no resemblance to the church's historical practice.

Denominationally, some of us are still forced to toe the line: we don't yet ordain women to the pastorate or eldership, but we've taken every other step we can. We have women leading our corporate worship, administering the Lord's Supper, preaching in our pulpits, teaching mixed-sex adult Sunday school classes, leading mixed-sex small groups, serving as commissioned deacons, serving on our national theological study committees, preaching at our conferences, serving as regional directors in our parachurch and mission organizations... Need I go on?

Yes, we have our Pharisaical righteousness in each place we're fiddling around the edge. Women preaching in our pulpits are the exception--not the rule--and they do so under the authority and review of the elders board. Our women deacons are not ordained--they're only commissioned. We've limited the Sunday school classes led by women to one quarter of our offerings each term. Women lead our call to worship and prayer of confession, but never our pastoral prayer. Women administer the Lord's Supper, but our senior pastor is a man and he's the one who hands the trays to the women before they go out into the congregation. The woman on the study committee has special expertise in the subject under review, and she's not a full voting member. Our conference isn't a church meeting, our speakers aren't really preaching, and we don't have any authority over those who attend. Our organization is parachurch--not church--so we have no need to submit to Scripture's prohibition of women exercising authority over men.

At this point, some readers are likely hung up on one or more of the particulars I've cited and are asking themselves, "Is it really wrong to have women deacons?" "Why shouldn't women lead in prayer during corporate worship?" "If women shouldn't be regional directors of mission agencies, should they be running for president?" Or, "If it's wrong for women to preach in morning worship, is it also wrong for them to serve as professors in Christian colleges and seminaries?"

Although these are important questions, such examples are only meant to be representative of the sea-change the evangelical church has embraced. We will differ over which of the above practices are within the proper boundaries of Scripture, but we must not differ in acknowledging that, taken as a whole, these practices are not a reformation returning us to the doctrine of Scripture, but rather a revolution leading us away from Scripture...

We all know what it is to play warfare in mock battle, that it means to imitate everything just as it is in war. The troops are drawn up, they march into the field, seriousness is evident in every eye, but also courage and enthusiasm, the orderlies rush back and forth intrepidly, the commander's voice is heard, the signals, the battle cry, the volley of musketry, the thunder of cannon--everything exactly as it is in war, lacking only one thing...the danger.

So also it is with playing Christianity, that is, imitating Christian preaching in such a way that everything, absolutely everything is included in as deceptive a form as possible--only one thing is lacking...the danger

-Soren Kierkegaard, Attack Upon "Christendom" 1854-1855, translated with an introduction by Walter Lowrie, (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1956) p. 258.

Addendum: Wednesday evening, March 8, Bryan Chapell and I met together to discuss this recent series of posts. After our discussion, here are several clarifications and corrections that I believe need to be made. I have made them here, at the top of the post, because it would be difficult to weave them into the post itself in a way that would call attention to them sufficiently as corrections.

First, it is unclear that the paragraph beginning, "The whole things is a tempest in a teacup" is not my judgment, but rather a hypothetical construct of what the average member of the PCA might have thought to himself.

Second, I refer to "the Covenant/Redeemer/Reformed mantra, "A woman may do anything a non-ordained man may do." Bryan told me that this is not his position and that he speaks against this position as an adequate representation of the Biblical perspective. This is an encouragement to me.

Third, Bryan rehearsed his actions in response to the chapel time in which Diane Langberg spoke, and clearly my own summary of those actions is not accurate. Here is an accurate record of what happened:

When General Assembly convened that summer and the time on the agenda arrived when President Chapell was asked to give an answer for what had happened on his watch, President Chapell told the assembly:

That Diane Langberg had been told ahead of time what the standards were for her speaking during the chapel time;

That after she spoke at Covenant Seminary, Diane Langberg received a letter reminding her of the standards, and expressing concern that those standards had not been followed; and

That the administration of Covenant Seminary met with students to explain the situation and to assure the seminary community that what had happened was not according to the standards they were committed to upholding.

Since I implied Covenant Seminary was not upholding the PCA position in its response to Diane Langberg's chapel time, I regret this inaccuracy and now believe Covenant's response was good.

Some wonder how I could accuse prominent teaching elders of the Presbyterian Church in America and the institutions they lead of sympathizing with the egalitarian, feminist cause? Don't I know the PCA's reason to exist is tied at the heart to opposing these ideologies? When a group of mainline PC(USA) churches left their own denomination for a more conservative one back in 1983, wasn't it necessary for them to found the new denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, precisely because the PCA wasn't willing to compromise on women in office? And isn't the same reason behind our present failure to bring into the PCA many churches currently departing the PC(USA) train wreck: that these churches and their pastors are determined to enter a denomination that allows their women to serve as pastors, elders, and deacons?

So, as a denomination we've paid our dues. We've seen the cost of our convictions, and haven't wavered. What on earth am I thinking, then, to accuse our seminary and its president of being allies of the egalitarian, feminist ideology?

It's a fair question, although I have no confidence I'll be able to answer it to the satisfaction of more than a few because the heart of the answer is tied up, not with specific arguments about Scripture's teaching about sexuality, but rather its teaching concerning the nature of pastoral ministry.

Several years ago, Covenant Theological Seminary had a woman preach in chapel. When it was reported within our denomination, it scandalized a number of presbyters across the country...

A few weeks ago, President Frank James and his wife, Carolyn Custis James, sent the above letter to RTS students encouraging them to register for a seminar sponsored by Mrs. James' Whitby Forum, The Impact Movement, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Reformed Theological Seminary. The April 13-15 seminar titled, "Mission Critical: Women on the Frontlines for the Gospel," will be led by Drs. Alice Matthews and Diane Langberg, and Mrs. James...

Now that the PCA's Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies has issued its report, debate will be lively. But framing the debate is vital. And to that end Tim and I have several comments we'd like to make.

1. It appears our report a year ago that some within the PCA desire to rid the PCA of 85 Federal Vision (FV) churches was accurate.