Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
Hey y'all,
A few days ago I replied to a post at The Reformed Pastor about the recent developments in my denomination, the EPC. As it was an old post I replied to, I suppose not many folks took notice. Anyhow, I wanted to reprint my comments and see if anyone on the PB has any thoughts about what I said. My comments reflect my concern with the direction of my church, not some spur of the moment TR response. (I try to avoid making those
.)
I would be glad to hear anyone's thoughts, but if there are any EPC members or ministers here, I would really be glad to get some interaction. Thanks a lot.
Here's what I wrote:
Here are a few thoughts from one who is both a long-standing member/minister in the EPC and a complementarian.
1) The issue “Chaplaintraining” raised about paedo-communion is valid. In the Central South Presbytery this issue has arisen in practical ways, as multiple ministers have stated paedo-communion views. The response has been what I would suggest for egalitarians: their exceptions to the Westminster Standards have been denied, but they have been allowed to remain ministers in good standing so long as they refrain from teaching, preaching, or practicing their views. In my opinion, the best solution for egalitarianism in the EPC would be to allow them to be ‘grandfathered in,’ but to treat it as an aberration and state that our standards require a hermeneutic which affirms the clear stance of Scripture that the office of Teaching Elder be reserved for men.
2) In my experience I have noted several things RE: egalitarians.
a) they are unfamiliar with Reformed theology, particularly Reformed hermeneutics.
b) they are unfamiliar with complementarianism. The best treatments of this theological view are by a woman, Mrs. Susan Hunt of Georgia. I have yet to come across an egalitarian who has dealt seriously with the incredibly well-reasoned arguments raised by scholars such as Mrs. Hunt.
c) they have almost invariably attended what one might call a ‘theology-lite’ seminary. That is, one which emphasizes practical issues of ministry above (and to the exclusion of?) solid exegesis and linguistic studies.
d) (in line w/ point a above) they are usually of the “well, I’m personally Reformed, but I think theology is divisive and Reformed theology is inimical to church growth, mission, and evangelism.” (This quote came from a New Wineskins leader.)
3) This issue of women’s ordination isn’t a practical/pragmatic matter, but one which is revelatory of a deep-seated malady in the EPC. This malady is the fact that we have a weak Confessionalism. For instance, it is common to come across ministers (let alone elders) who are not aware of the fact that we have three confessional documents to which they are required to subscribe. These are the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. In my Presbytery (Midwest), it is common for ordination candidates to state no exceptions, and then to go on to state that they are not on board with “Limited Atonement,” Covenant theology, the baptism of infants, or Reformed sacramentology. At a Presbytery meeting in 2009, I personally was gavelled down by the Moderator for pressing an ordinand to come clean and state that it is necessary to state an exception to the WCF, WLC, & WSC because he stated that he had not, nor would he, baptize his children, nor would he encourage Christian parents to have their children baptized. My Presbytery commonly ordains or transfers in ministers who are functional Arminians or Amyralidians, Baptists, Dispensationalists, etc. I have had more than one candidate for ordination in the last two years tell me that he had not read or studied the Westminster Standards.
THIS is the real issue at hand: what does it mean to be Reformed and Presbyterian in the EPC? We have adopted (in 2001) “The Essentials of Our Faith” as a confessional document. But it is also expressly stated in the adopting act of 2001 that this is not meant to be a bare-bones minimum theological statement for ordination. According to that act, Elders, Minsters, and Deacons are required to subscribe to the THREE Westminster Standards. But I personally know of dozens of churches that have untrained elders & deacons, and which have never asked for exceptions to the Westminster Standards.
Furthermore, in my personal experience the Presbyteries of the West & Midwest have such low standards of subscription that it is possible to be out of accord with almost every point of Reformed theology and still be approved as a minister. Through friends I also know that this is the case for the Presbytery of the East & the New Wineskins Presbytery, if not others.
As I say, THIS is the real issue. Women’s ordination is but the tip of the iceberg revealing a serious theological drift and unmooring from the Confessionalism that our Book of Order and the Acts of the Assembly require. It is an hermeneutical problem, a theological problem, and a polity crisis.
4) Already, a number of the more Reformed ministers and churches in the EPC are being forced to decide if the drift of the denomination requires that they move to the PCA. Several churches have already left, or in process. And it seems that no one really cares that those in our midst who are Confessionally Reformed are being pushed out in this fashion.
5) Several presbyteries have already adopted ‘gag rules’ for the discussion of the ordination of women. That is, female candidates are required to submit a paper explaining their egalitarianism, but then no discussion, follow-up questions, or debate is allowed regarding their views. So, (and this is not an hypothetical example) a woman who states that Paul would have never considered ordaining women, or that he was a misogynist, or that the clear meaning of Scripture must be disregarded because “that was then and this is now, and we have better understanding than did Paul about the implications of the Gospel” must be moved through the process without the ability of other presbyters to ask hermeneutical questions.
6) The clear lesson of history in the last 100 years points to the fact that every denomination that has allowed women’s ordination has gone liberal. It is not a ‘slippery slope’ argument. Rather this is observable, documented fact. And why is that? It is an issue of hermeneutics. As Dr. Ligon Duncan of RTS has noted, ‘if you can make Paul’s statement that ‘I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man’ mean ‘I do permit it,’ then you can make Scripture say a anything.”
7) The standard hermeneutic that allows for women’s ordination is the self-same as that used by liberals in the PCUSA, the ECUSA, the ELCA, and the UMC to affirm homosexuality. I am always open to hearing a hermeneutically sound argument (which is why I desire open debate, not gag rules), but thus far I have not encountered such a hermeneutic.
8) As you peruse the history of American Presbyterianism, it is clear that weak subscription always leads to liberalism, division, the undermining of the Great Commission, and other ills.
9) We in the EPC have a Book of Order and Acts of the Assembly that REQUIRE subscription. The ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ practice of so many of our churches and presbyteries is nothing more than a violation of our ordination vows, refusing to let our yea be yea and our nay be nay, and bearing false witness. If presbyters in the EPC don’t like our policies and confessionalism, let them change it. Let them make the EPC the Evangelical Free Church of the Presbyterian world. But until those policies are changed, to continue in our present course is to dance on the edge if a precipice. It will not end well, nor is it faithful to God, to our vows, or to our sacred trust.
I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m “flaming” people, but this is how I and a number of other ministers I know around the country feel. Moreover, this is where I/we are after observation, deliberation, reflection, and prayer.
If anyone has any thoughts, I would be more than happy to have an irenic discussion and hear alternate assessments.
Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father & the Lord Jesus Christ.
A few days ago I replied to a post at The Reformed Pastor about the recent developments in my denomination, the EPC. As it was an old post I replied to, I suppose not many folks took notice. Anyhow, I wanted to reprint my comments and see if anyone on the PB has any thoughts about what I said. My comments reflect my concern with the direction of my church, not some spur of the moment TR response. (I try to avoid making those
.)I would be glad to hear anyone's thoughts, but if there are any EPC members or ministers here, I would really be glad to get some interaction. Thanks a lot.
Here's what I wrote:
Here are a few thoughts from one who is both a long-standing member/minister in the EPC and a complementarian.
1) The issue “Chaplaintraining” raised about paedo-communion is valid. In the Central South Presbytery this issue has arisen in practical ways, as multiple ministers have stated paedo-communion views. The response has been what I would suggest for egalitarians: their exceptions to the Westminster Standards have been denied, but they have been allowed to remain ministers in good standing so long as they refrain from teaching, preaching, or practicing their views. In my opinion, the best solution for egalitarianism in the EPC would be to allow them to be ‘grandfathered in,’ but to treat it as an aberration and state that our standards require a hermeneutic which affirms the clear stance of Scripture that the office of Teaching Elder be reserved for men.
2) In my experience I have noted several things RE: egalitarians.
a) they are unfamiliar with Reformed theology, particularly Reformed hermeneutics.
b) they are unfamiliar with complementarianism. The best treatments of this theological view are by a woman, Mrs. Susan Hunt of Georgia. I have yet to come across an egalitarian who has dealt seriously with the incredibly well-reasoned arguments raised by scholars such as Mrs. Hunt.
c) they have almost invariably attended what one might call a ‘theology-lite’ seminary. That is, one which emphasizes practical issues of ministry above (and to the exclusion of?) solid exegesis and linguistic studies.
d) (in line w/ point a above) they are usually of the “well, I’m personally Reformed, but I think theology is divisive and Reformed theology is inimical to church growth, mission, and evangelism.” (This quote came from a New Wineskins leader.)
3) This issue of women’s ordination isn’t a practical/pragmatic matter, but one which is revelatory of a deep-seated malady in the EPC. This malady is the fact that we have a weak Confessionalism. For instance, it is common to come across ministers (let alone elders) who are not aware of the fact that we have three confessional documents to which they are required to subscribe. These are the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. In my Presbytery (Midwest), it is common for ordination candidates to state no exceptions, and then to go on to state that they are not on board with “Limited Atonement,” Covenant theology, the baptism of infants, or Reformed sacramentology. At a Presbytery meeting in 2009, I personally was gavelled down by the Moderator for pressing an ordinand to come clean and state that it is necessary to state an exception to the WCF, WLC, & WSC because he stated that he had not, nor would he, baptize his children, nor would he encourage Christian parents to have their children baptized. My Presbytery commonly ordains or transfers in ministers who are functional Arminians or Amyralidians, Baptists, Dispensationalists, etc. I have had more than one candidate for ordination in the last two years tell me that he had not read or studied the Westminster Standards.
THIS is the real issue at hand: what does it mean to be Reformed and Presbyterian in the EPC? We have adopted (in 2001) “The Essentials of Our Faith” as a confessional document. But it is also expressly stated in the adopting act of 2001 that this is not meant to be a bare-bones minimum theological statement for ordination. According to that act, Elders, Minsters, and Deacons are required to subscribe to the THREE Westminster Standards. But I personally know of dozens of churches that have untrained elders & deacons, and which have never asked for exceptions to the Westminster Standards.
Furthermore, in my personal experience the Presbyteries of the West & Midwest have such low standards of subscription that it is possible to be out of accord with almost every point of Reformed theology and still be approved as a minister. Through friends I also know that this is the case for the Presbytery of the East & the New Wineskins Presbytery, if not others.
As I say, THIS is the real issue. Women’s ordination is but the tip of the iceberg revealing a serious theological drift and unmooring from the Confessionalism that our Book of Order and the Acts of the Assembly require. It is an hermeneutical problem, a theological problem, and a polity crisis.
4) Already, a number of the more Reformed ministers and churches in the EPC are being forced to decide if the drift of the denomination requires that they move to the PCA. Several churches have already left, or in process. And it seems that no one really cares that those in our midst who are Confessionally Reformed are being pushed out in this fashion.
5) Several presbyteries have already adopted ‘gag rules’ for the discussion of the ordination of women. That is, female candidates are required to submit a paper explaining their egalitarianism, but then no discussion, follow-up questions, or debate is allowed regarding their views. So, (and this is not an hypothetical example) a woman who states that Paul would have never considered ordaining women, or that he was a misogynist, or that the clear meaning of Scripture must be disregarded because “that was then and this is now, and we have better understanding than did Paul about the implications of the Gospel” must be moved through the process without the ability of other presbyters to ask hermeneutical questions.
6) The clear lesson of history in the last 100 years points to the fact that every denomination that has allowed women’s ordination has gone liberal. It is not a ‘slippery slope’ argument. Rather this is observable, documented fact. And why is that? It is an issue of hermeneutics. As Dr. Ligon Duncan of RTS has noted, ‘if you can make Paul’s statement that ‘I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man’ mean ‘I do permit it,’ then you can make Scripture say a anything.”
7) The standard hermeneutic that allows for women’s ordination is the self-same as that used by liberals in the PCUSA, the ECUSA, the ELCA, and the UMC to affirm homosexuality. I am always open to hearing a hermeneutically sound argument (which is why I desire open debate, not gag rules), but thus far I have not encountered such a hermeneutic.
8) As you peruse the history of American Presbyterianism, it is clear that weak subscription always leads to liberalism, division, the undermining of the Great Commission, and other ills.
9) We in the EPC have a Book of Order and Acts of the Assembly that REQUIRE subscription. The ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ practice of so many of our churches and presbyteries is nothing more than a violation of our ordination vows, refusing to let our yea be yea and our nay be nay, and bearing false witness. If presbyters in the EPC don’t like our policies and confessionalism, let them change it. Let them make the EPC the Evangelical Free Church of the Presbyterian world. But until those policies are changed, to continue in our present course is to dance on the edge if a precipice. It will not end well, nor is it faithful to God, to our vows, or to our sacred trust.
I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m “flaming” people, but this is how I and a number of other ministers I know around the country feel. Moreover, this is where I/we are after observation, deliberation, reflection, and prayer.
If anyone has any thoughts, I would be more than happy to have an irenic discussion and hear alternate assessments.
Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father & the Lord Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
