Volume 4 Issue 4
Page 1

December 1999

DEFINITIONS

By TE Byron Snapp, Editor
The Presbyterian Witness

Definitions are important in life and, of course, in the Church. In my opinion this is an important subject within the PCA because we are seeing words and concepts being redefined, and these redefinitions being allowable and acceptable. In this brief article, I will mention a few redefinitions that are particularly troubling to me.

At the General Assembly level, the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) hears cases and rules accordingly. Six men are elected by the General Assembly to this 24-man commission annually to serve for a four-year term. Cases are not brought to the Assembly unless the losing side gets a minimum of one-third of the votes of those present and voting and that minority then decides to bring the case to the Assembly.

Some might say that this redefinition of a court at the General Assembly level is minor but necessary. Minor because the Assembly elects Commission members, and necessary because of the size of the Assembly. However, in my opinion, complaints are too important not to be brought to the Assembly for a final vote.

Without an Assembly vote, many decisions will go unnoticed. Although the decisions are printed in the Commissioners, handbook, due to a time crunch, pages that are usually read by many are those that have recommendations upon which the Assembly is to act.

Once these decisions are reached by the SJC, these decisions "shall be binding and conclusive on the parties who are directly involved in the matter being adjudicated, and may be appealed to in subsequent similar cases as to any principle which may have been decided. (See [Book of Church Order] BCO 3-5 and 6 and [Westminster Confession of Faith] WCF 31.3)." (BCO 14-7) Judicial decisions not only affect the parties involved they can be "appealed to in subsequent similar cases."

Will bad decisions be made by the SJC" That is not the issue here. The point is that the SJC has become the highest court of the Church for most judicial cases. This is contrary to and thus a redefining of the opening words of BCO 14-1: "The General Assembly is the highest court of this Church, and represents in one body all the churches thereof." To date, there has been but one case (Case 97-5 Mt. Carmel Session vs. New Jersey Presbytery) that has been brought before the Assembly after the new rules for handling judicial cases by the SJC were adopted by the Assembly.

Many would consider the verdicts on judicial cases the most important work of a church court. After all, the General Assembly is defined first of all as a court -- "the highest court of this Church." These verdicts are binding on parties involved and can set precedents for similar cases even if the verdicts are flawed or faulty. Time will tell if a future PCA General Assembly will desire to regain its responsibility and again become "the highest court of this Church" for all judicial cases.

WCF IV.1 speaks of all things being made "in the space of six days." It is important to note that the authors did not say in the space of six yom (the Hebrew word translated day in Geneses 1). They could also have written "in the space of six eons of time," or "indeterminate lengths of time." They did not. In referring to the length of time they used the English word day. To underline this reasoning I will make reference to WCF XXI:7 in which the writers speak of the day of worship as follows: ". . . He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week . . . ." Clearly the authors say the seventh day to be of normative length from creation and following thereafter.

It is very difficult for me to understand how anyone could say that a definition of creation day length other than a normative day is not an exception to our doctrinal standards.

I believe that the WCF authors were defining days in Scriptural terms. The context of Genesis 1 describes creation days in the very terms we define a normative day: light and darkness (v. 4) and evening and morning (vs. 5,8,13,19,23,31). Also in Genesis 5, Adam's genealogy sheds similar light on the definition of day in the creation account. Verse 3 states that Adam lived 130 years and then Seth was born. There is no reason to think otherwise than that time in Adam's life was measured from the moment of his creation. Normative days flow into and make up normative years. Further, in verse 5, we read Adam's life spanned 930 years. In fact, the inspired writer is specific: "All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years." Again, the reader must ask, "Is God being honest with the reader" Did Adam's life span 930 years and an additional two indeterminate lengths of time (the sixth and seventh creation days)?" We have no reason to doubt God's honesty. When Scripture states that the entirely of Adam's life was 930 years we can expect that time to include the sixth and seventh days of creation.

Added to this evidence is the Fourth Commandment in which God ties in resting on the seventh day with God's resting on the seventh day of creation. There is no reason to believe that the length of creation days is at variance with the length of subsequent days.

In light of the above evidence, I have yet to see scriptural evidence that gives credibility to redefining day in Genesis 1.

3. Women preaching: There was evidence available at the most recent General Assembly that a woman spoke at a PCA church planters' conference in California during the previous year. Overture 16 from Western Carolina Presbytery, due to "reports of Sessions and Presbyteries allowing women to preach/teach the Scriptures at worship services," asked that the PCA "speak to this issue and to advise Sessions and Presbyteries not to allow this practice to continue" (p. 41 Commissioners' Handbook for the 27th General Assembly). The Assembly answered this overture in the negative. One of the grounds they gave was that I Timothy 2:11-12 does not allow women to preach. The Assembly also did not pursue allegations that MNA church planters sat under a woman who gave application of Scripture and exhortation to them. The negative answer was given because the Assembly took the position that this situation should be dealt with in the lower courts.

Again, there appears to be a redefinition here. Women are allowed to teach and exhort men as long as they are not ordained. I wonder how many PCA Sessions have allowed women to teach men for years in adult Sunday School classes" It is thus not surprising to see unordained women now speaking in worship services.

Scripture, grounding the issue in creation, has defined who teaches men in church as a gender issue. Men are to teach men (I Timothy 2:11-14). I fear the PCA is redefining the issue in terms of ordination. In other words, as long as a woman is unordained, she is allowed to teach and exhort men and to orally read Scripture during worship services.

I have heard any number of arguments raised to support this avenue of thought. Some say the woman remains under the authority of men because she is teaching and exhorting by invitation of and under the authority of the Session. If this argument is valid, it would also allow for an ordained female to speak as long as she was invited by the Session. The argument is clearly out of accord with Paul's teaching in I Timothy 2:11ff. Others would allow for this in order to more actively involve women in worship. Yet we must ask, "Isn't everyone who attends the worship service to be actively involved in worship?" The issue is not worship involvement but worship leadership. Scripture clearly testifies that men are to lead worship.

If the issue is redefined in terms of ordination rather than gender, the doors are open for women to participate in worship leadership.

4. Good: Upon returning from General Assembly others often ask those who attend for their assessment. I have not attended the past two years. Yet, I have heard more than one commissioner describe the Assembly as being good, as in smoothly run, with little controversy.

As much as we detest controversy, we must remember that the absence of disagreement does not mean a meeting has been good. Within the Assembly context, commissioners should say the Assembly is good if God's Word has been faithfully applied to the issues at hand.

God established the definition for good in Genesis 1 when he pronounced the results of His daily creation activity as good. These results were good because God said so. We must define good accordingly. The absence of disagreement is good as long as God's Word is the standard of our agreement.

5. "Assistant to the Pastor": In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with a pastor having an assistant. However, a number of churches, of which I am aware, have used this terminology to bring, in reality, an assistant or associate pastor onto the field without an examination by the presbytery prior to the move.

At some later date, the individual who has already been teaching and, in some cases, preaching, is presented to the presbytery for examination as an assistant or associate pastor. I have yet to hear any way that the assistant pastor will have any different job responsibilities than he already had as "assistant to the pastor." Nor has any evidence been presented, in examinations that I have witnessed, as to the "assistant to the pastor" manifesting gifts after his move onto the field that the Session deemed of such note that they changed their desire for him to work in an ordained capacity and thus sent him off to a seminary for training toward future ordination. To the contrary, the individual and the local calling body (Session or congregation) have already, to their satisfaction, noted ministerial gifts in the individual and have called him accordingly. Additionally, these individuals are already seminary graduates.

A number of sections in our Book of Church Order (BCO) speak to this issue. None does so more clearly than BCO 21-1:

No minister, licentiate or candidate shall receive a call from a church but by the permission of his Presbytery. When a call has been presented to the Presbytery, if found in order and the Presbytery deem it for the good of the Church, they shall place it in the hands of the person to whom it is addressed.

Ordinarily, a candidate or licentiate may not be granted permission by the Presbytery to move on to the field to which he has been called, prior to his examination for licensure or ordination. Likewise, an ordained minister from another Presbyterian Church in America Presbytery or another denomination, ordinarily shall not move on to the field to which he has been called until examined and received by Presbytery.

There is good reason for this statement being practiced. First, a determining factor of the reality of a call to the ministry is the approval of presbytery. That is one reason for the examination. BCO 16-1 speaks to this fact: "Ordinary vocation to office in the church is the calling of God by the Spirit, through the inward testimony of a good conscience, the manifest approbation of God's people, and the concurring judgement of a lawful court of the church."

Within our understanding of Scripture, ordination does not come by the private laying on of hands. Instead, there is a three-fold evidence of that call of the Spirit to church vocation. Those three elements are the inward belief of the individual, the recognition of ministerial gifts by a group of God's people who are willing to be ministered to by the individual, and finally the approval of the presbytery of which the group (in this case, the local church) is located.

I know of no one who would ordain one who did not believe himself called to the ministry, nor should presbytery ordain an individual who does not have a call to a local valid Christian ministry. In this regard, BCO 21-1 is very clear: "Before a candidate or licentiate can be ordained to the office of ministry, he must receive a call to a definite work."

Thus, it is inconsistent to believe in the propriety of the third aspect of one's call being disregarded. Again, BCO 21-2 is very precise. "No minister, licentiate or candidate shall receive a call from a church, but by the permission of his Presbytery. When a call has been presented to the Presbytery, if found in order and the Presbytery deem it for the good of the Church, they shall place it in the hands of the person to whom it is addressed."

In fact, this section points out that the presbytery, not the local church, gives the call to the individual once all things are in order, including the individual passing the presbytery exam. However, in "assistant to the pastor" occurrences, the local church actually puts the call in the individual's hands. This action can only be defined as congregationalism not presbyterian, in my opinion.

This brings us to another problem. By the call being given to the individual by the local church, the individual (and his wife and children, if he is married and a father) is allowed to move onto the field and begin ministry prior to presbytery examination or approval.

Moving onto the field and beginning the ministry initiates a bond between the individual and the flock. Normally, this bond is very positive. It is always important. However, suppose that the individual does not do well on the presbytery exam. Sentiment can play a major role in resulting decisions. If the man is not approved, problems can occur on the field. Members of the flock who have already come to love the man's ministry may not understand the importance of the doctrinal issues that he has with the PCA constitutional standards. All they see is an "overbearing" presbytery that has denied them his ministry.

Additionally, members of presbytery will want to avoid uprooting the man (and his family) from his new home. Not only will the family be uprooted, his job ends also, if presbytery declines to approve the exam. Thus, it is easy for sentiment to take precedence over doctrinal concerns. This allows the individual to continue to minister on the field where he has been ministering inappropriately.

If the man had been examined prior to the move, an entirely different scenario would develop. The bonding with the flock would not have occurred. The local church would not have already spent money moving the man onto the field. Sentiment could be avoided on the floor of the presbytery, allowing for a more objective approach to questionable doctrinal issues.

It is for such events, among others, that called meetings are extremely important. If the individual is approved at the called meeting, he can move onto the field and immediately begin his work without a future presbytery exam that must be faced.

I have tried to show the practical nature as to why our BCO has a specific procedure for a man moving onto a field. This procedure is good for all involved -- the church, the one called, and the presbytery. The BCO is not infallible. Where it is impractical, it needs to be changed. It does not need to be changed by individuals and/or churches adapting their own procedures and definitions and proceeding accordingly.

Among Christians, there is currently much disgust and disbelief regarding the deconstruction of language that is occurring in academia, politics, and elsewhere. In the reformed community, we must be careful that we are not guilty of deconstruction of the understood meaning of words ourselves. Once this procedure begins, it is very hard to close the door on further deconstruction attempts by others.

When terms such as "assistant to the pastor" are used to allow assistant pastors/associate pastors to move onto the field prior to presbytery approval, I fear that the terminology that we have long accepted as a denomination is itself being deconstructed. Additionally, the concept of presbyterianism, at these points, is falling by the wayside and being replaced by congregationalism and individualism.

These are a few of the words that I believe are being redefined unofficially within our denomination. Although there is unofficial redefinition, the redefining is becoming the acceptable and, in that sense, official use of the word.

We need definitions to words. We serve the Triune God Who reveals Himself to us in words. We were redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ Who is the Word of God Incarnate. Redefining words can be dangerous. Recognized definitions can become meaningless. What then becomes important is one's own definition, not a standard, uniform understanding of the word's usage. Once some words are redefined, where does one stop redefining words" Words at the heart of the Gospel can be redefined too, although I hope our currently open door to redefinitions does not ultimately lead to that.

As a denomination we have stated our commitment to the inerrant Word of God as our rule of faith and practice. It is to that alone that we must turn for support in defining or redefining Scripture terminology.