The denomination I am currently affiliated with, the Presbyterian Church in America, has been holding its annual General Assembly this week in Nashville. This is always an important time for the denomination, as the leaders of our churches gather together to discuss the future of the denomination and how the churches can continue to remain committed to the shared mission of being "faithful to the Scriptures, true to the Reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission."

Due to my schedule, I haven't been able to follow the assembly as closely this year as I was last year, but I tuned in for a little while last night. As they were deliberating on different matters, I was reminded of a something I read in The House Where God Lives, a book on ecclesiology by Canadian theologian, Gary Badcock, published toward the end of last year. What he says here is worth thinking about as meetings like the PCA's General Assembly happen. Consider this:

'I believe in the church.' In this confession of Christian faith there are, ultimately, grounds for hope. The church is what it is not because of some program, system of thought, or pattern of practice. It is what it is, in the final analysis, because God graciously chooses to deal with us as sinful creatures. As a result, the church is more than a hollow shell in which humans think theological thoughts, dream religious and moral dreams, and do good deeds. Hence neither the existence nor the renewal of the church is strictly our task; this is just as well, because on account of our half-formed thinking, our sloth, and our disobedience, the church in itself is bound to be a disappointment. God is able to renew the church, but this is entirely despite the fact of its limitations and sinfulness, despite its wrong-headedness and outright lies at times, rather than because of any inherent holiness or wisdom it possesses. Therefore, the renewal of the church does not even depend on an ecclesiology; in the end, even the theologian who labors to say as much must fall silent, give thanks, and pray.

What is absolutely required here is neither a theology nor a strategy but what [we may call] 'God's lightning,' the free action of God that strikes unexpectedly, in ways that surpass what we can ask and in the end is totally independent of our answers or our imaginings. For the renewal of the church takes place as God reaches out in power, truth, and love by his Word and Spirit, so that God himself comes to us – God, the unutterable one who transcends all our theological systems and stratagems alike, the one who judges all things and who makes all things new. The renewal of the church, though a goal toward which we can surely work and concerning which we can think, is ultimately something for which we must pray and wait. This is what I intend when I speak of the church as 'the house where God lives,' that is, affirming what is sufficient for our needs in this age and in all ages, and affirming what is finally the one great theme of ecclesiology as a question of Christian doctrine (337).

By no means, of course, is this a call for us to sit idly by and wait for God to work. Indeed, the work of meetings such as General Assembly is very important for the life of the church. But what Badcock wants us to realize here is that while our work is important, in the end it is nothing if God is not in it. When we stop and think about it this is perhaps an obvious truth, but in our day to day work it is easy to let something so simple – despite it being so crucial – slip from our minds.

To that end, let us continually be in prayer for the Spirit to be at work in our churches bringing life and renewal as we strive to be faithful to the one who called us, and as we labor in our mission to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. To him be the glory forever.

Tonight marks the official start of the Presbyterian Church in America's 37th General Assembly, although some committee work has been going on already. With yesterday's negative ruling on Overtures 5 and 10 to appoint study committees to examine the role of women in the ministry of the church, the internet has been buzzing with all kinds of discussion on the matter. The Twitterverse in particular has come alive with people on both sides of the issues carrying on short discussions on the matter.

One the related issues I've seen discussed is whether a body of male elders is sufficient to address the topic. Some have said that to honestly sit down and deliberate on the matter, women should be present. Others argue that the structure of the PCA as determined in the Book of Church Order does not permit that, and that insofar as the dictates of the BCO are biblical in regards to church government and that the denomination is faithfully enacting the biblical mandates, we should trust that God will bless the discussions and wisdom of the body of elders dealing with the matter at the level of the General Assembly.

Here again, as I am wont to do in the midst of such discussions, I want to find the middle ground between these two positions. There are a few things that need to be taken into consideration here, so let me see if I can flesh this out a bit.

1. As far as the procedure of the General Assembly goes, I side with those who maintain that we should follow the instructions of the BCO. The churches of the denomination have willingly bound themselves to operate according to the document, and should carry out any matter of business according to the rules prescribed. For the present issue, if a church or presbytery feels that there should be a procedural change in how the matter is dealt with, the BCO should not be cast aside because it is seen as an inhibition or obstacle. Instead, the issue of amending the BCO (should it be found to be unbiblical in its current state) must be dealt with first.
2. I fully agree that to have a fruitful discussion on the role of women's ministry in the church, women should be present. However, this discussion does not necessarily need to take place at the level of the General Assembly. In fact, it would probably be most beneficial for a local church to have the discussion with its own members, for in that way all the women of each church can be involved in determining how they can serve Christ's church most effectively. Additionally, to work out these things together as a local body would serve to strengthen the unity and bonds of that church.
3. Although no one has accused anyone directly of doing this, there is an underlying concern in regard to how much authority we give the BCO. While we must certainly respect the governing documents of the denomination, we must nonetheless continue to recognize that they are man-made documents and subject to error (and thus revision). And the PCA has not hesitated to do this, as many amendments have been made to it over the years. My concern here is similar to that of my first point—that we respect the document we have willingly submitted ourselves to by not tossing it aside when it appears to be an obstacle, yet holding in tension our acknowledgement that it is not infallible, and in some cases may not be biblical. It must then always be open to revision, should that be found to be the case.
4. Watching this discussion unfold, it has become apparent that this goes deeper than just the subject of women in ministry. Another topic I've seen emerging is regarding elders and their ability to faithfully deal with this matter. As I mentioned above, some feel that an honest and fruitful discussion of the role of women in ministry can only take place with women present. On the other side are those who assert that when elders are fulfilling their roles in fidelity to the Scriptural mandates for eldership, God will grant them clarity and wisdom to come to biblical conclusions on the matter. Here I find myself in agreement with the latter. But the reply of the former side is worth considering as well—what happens if the elders who are discussing the matter are not elders in a way consistent with the biblical model (on both personal and ecclesiastical levels)? Maybe that is something to chew on.
5. Related to this is the question of how much authority we vest in the eldership of the church. In regard to the last point, there is a limit to how much we can say, and we must concede that oft-quoted dictum that only God truly knows a man's (and a denomination's) heart. With that, we must recognize that God has ordained leadership for His church to which He has given authority to rule the body. While we, as heirs to the Reformed tradition, do not grant our leaders unrestrained authority, we do nonetheless submit ourselves to the authority of the men ordained to lead the church. In the end, there are two extremes we want to avoid: first, the antagonism toward authority that is so characteristic of our culture; and second, allowing the leadership of our churches to rule with unchecked authority. I do believe that when our elders exercise authority within the bounds of legitimacy, we ought to submit to that.

I trust that this is sufficiently unclear and scattered. As with my post yesterday, I'm only attempting to think through some of the issues as they come up. In that regard, I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts you would have on the matter.

The Presbyterian Church in America is holding the 37th General Assembly here in Orlando this year. Since it's in town, there has been lots of buzz about it around the seminary, and if I get the chance I think I'll drop by to see what's going on. As far as the agenda goes, there isn't too much of great significance, save that ubiquitous issue of women and the ministry of the Church. This seems to be an issue that is not about to go away anytime soon.

I've written about the ordination of women before, and would generally side with the complementarian (for lack of better term) understanding of the respective roles of men and women in ministry. Increasingly, especially in the Protestant world, I’m in a minority on this issue. Over the years, I have heard and read lots of arguments in favor of a more egalitarian understanding of ordination and ministry, those ranging from absolute rubbish to moderately decent. The former are arguments that tend to be based on cultural values. I am very hesitant to give much credence to those arguments since Christianity is not to be shaped by culture, but is itself supposed to shape culture. Those of the latter sort are based on an honest effort at biblical exegesis, although as of yet I have found none persuasive enough to make me change my position.

I know there are those who defend the position that women should not hold ordained office only on the grounds that Paul explicitly says they should not. I also know there are those who defend the position that they should be permitted to be ordained only on the grounds that they feel Paul’s teaching is historically-conditioned. But neither of these is sufficient—the former is a proof-texting argument, and the latter is cultural.

Conversely, this discussion goes much deeper. It is, at the root, an anthropological discussion. Any question of the role of men and women in the Church must begin with a discussion of what God intended man and woman to be when He created them. The differences between men and women are not societal constructs, as so many today want to believe, but instead are normative and established in the created order. Will the Church mold itself to a deficient cultural understanding, or engage the issue in an effort to redeem a proper, holistic understanding of what it means to be human? Both these are huge struggles. Our culture has profound influence on our ecclesiology and anthropology, and that contributes in part to the incredible difficulty of dealing with the question of what it means to be human and what that in turn means for this issue.

On that note, many are bothered with the way the PCA has dealt with the matter. As I understand it, they feel that the issue has been sidelined and that no helpful teachings on how women can serve in the Church and how they can use their gifts most effectively has been presented. I haven't been in the PCA long enough to know all the ins and outs of the discussion, but I'm sure those are fair accusations. It sounds as if the denomination has sought to avoid the problem of cultural concession while neglecting to fully answer the question of what a truly biblical anthropology says to the issue.

What will come of it? I'm not sure. I am hoping the PCA continues to uphold its position on ordination. But I am also very sympathetic to those who want more clarity and understanding on what the role of women in the Church should be. God has blessed our churches with many faithful, godly women who are incredibly gifted and can add so much to the ministry of those churches. I hope the PCA engages in a thorough study of what the Bible teaches in regards to women using their gifts in service to the Church in order to build up the body of Christ and to fulfill the mission of the Church. Additionally, I hope it will serve to strengthen the unity of our denomination.

If you want to know what's going on this week, Twitter users will be updating on what's happening at General Assembly, and you can follow it all by clicking here.

I was in a class this semester that spent a third of the time dealing with American Presbyterian history. That time was devoted especially to those who are seeking ordination in a Presbyterian church, because they are required to know the tradition's history for their candidacy exam. While the seminary I attend is not affiliated directly with the Presbyterian Church in America, a large number of students come from that tradition, myself included. And although as a whole the history is not particularly stimulating, it was by all means helpful to learn some of it.

In wrapping up the class today, the professor, John Muether, issued a warning to the PCA and to us who were seeking to be good churchmen (a favorite word of his) and to do ministry within the denomination. He said something to this effect:

If I were in the PCA I'd be concerned about the increasing diversity in the PCA. To me it seems the issues that divide the PCA are similar to those that have split other Presbyterian denominations in the United States the past. At this point, I don't know where the PCA is going to find its theological identity.

Is there division in the future of the PCA? I don't know. But there are some difficult times ahead in terms of establishing a proper alignment of Presbyterian faith and practice. You are beginning to see lines of affinity drawn ideologically, and your real committment is less to your regional presbytery than to these other groups to whom you find the closest ideological agreement.The PCA is Balkanizing, and is in danger of doing so even further as these affinity groups gain their strength.

While I was somewhat surprised to hear him say this, in a sense I understood what he was saying, and do incline towards hearing his words as somewhat prophetic. As a denomination or ecclesiastical body grows larger, it inherently grows more diverse. This is historical reality. As such, a bigger ship becomes increasingly difficult to steer.

By "lines of affinity" Muether is referring to such groups as the Tim Keller's Redeemer Church Planting Network, or the very conservative groups surrounding Greenville Seminary and Joseph Pipa, or J. Ligon Duncan and Twin Lakes Fellowship. I apologize to those of you outside Reformed and Presbyterian circles who are likely not aware of these different divisions, but these are some of the different camps that exist within the PCA. A classmate of mine made the further observation that theological cohesion is beginning to erode within the denomination, and the yearly General Assembly is becoming more of a rubber-stamping bureaucracy instead of overseeing and leading the denomination with diligent and biblical efforts to guide its life and mission.

Recently I completed a research paper on the Christian Reformed Church, another denomination I have close ties too, having been raised in it, and I observed similar trends to what Muether observed in class about the PCA. The CRC has suffered from a lack of cogent theological identity, and thus has splintered and fractured throughout the years. Although it still exists as an entity, it is arguably held together by tolerance rather than mutual agreement, and as such it is a bond that is bound to break at some point in the future.

What of denominations, then? One would think that thirty-thousand plus denominational divisions is more than enough for one world. But it appears that groups like the PCA and the CRC (just as reference) are headed towards division again. There are undoubtedly other denominations facing the same circumstances. Muether, a member of the substantially smaller Orthodox Presbyterian Church, maintains that a smaller denomination is easier to keep unified both theologically and in its mission. I think he is right, and in that respect perhaps dividing the larger denominations would be helpful.

I do not say that wholeheartedly, however. As the Church looks outside its own walls, it is easy to perceive the distrust and suspicion that unbelievers hold in regards to the Church as an institution. Our endless debating and fracturing leaves our witness severely compromised. If we are to effectively witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ, it involves us laying aside differences and uniting in his name to battle the forces of the prince of darkness. There is strength in numbers, as the saying goes. Our focus necessarily must shift from understanding the Church as an institution to an organic body, as I have stated before.

Perhaps, then, we are seeing what some people have been advocating for some time--a breaking down of the organizational structure of denominations. I do not know that I would be entirely opposed to that, though I also hesitate to throw my full support behind this notion. Having been the witness of splits and divisions before, I do not care to see that happen again. If we are to reclaim the idea of the local church and restore an emphasis on community, then maybe we ought to consider linking our churches together in some sort of more flexible alliance. What that looks like, I am not entirely sure. Theology and truth remain important to me and I believe there has to be some degree of common agreement in regards to this, but I do not know exactly where to draw the line on that. Drawing it too close will result in fractures and splinters. Drawing it too far will result in an unrecognizable and eclectic organism that is unmanageable and ineffective.

There are two things that are for certain, however. First, we must be sure that we do not entrench ourselves in a posture of isolationism and self-preservation because we are so bent on ensuring that our theological boundaries do not move in any way. I am in no way arguing that truth be compromised, just that we are passionate about sharing that truth we hold dear with the world outside our walls. Second, whatever issues our denominations, alliances, or federations deal with, our ultimate concern is and always must be the gospel. We must never neglect the task that Christ has given us.

Do denominations have a future? The answer is uncertain to me. What do you think?