The Value of Presbyterian Ecclesiology...

[bookslover]

...is demonstrated by the fact that a foul-mouthed theological loose cannon with anger-management issues like Mark Driscoll would never have been ordained in the first place - and, if he had, for some reason, he would not have lasted nearly as long in the pulpit as he did.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Agreed; but as I have said, let's move on as far as MD is concerned. If you want to discuss the advantages in general in Presbyterianism's seeming ability to handle scandalous preachers, carry on.

 

[Miss Marple]

That presumes, of course, that the Presbytery is staffed mostly with God-fearing, Bible-believing men. Sadly this can fizzle out; witness the PCUSA. I say this as a supporter of Presbyterian ecclesiology. I do believe it is the most biblical form of church government, but, can't cure all ills.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I both value and believe in Presbyterian polity.
However, if Presbyterian government itself is inherently such a marvelous bulwark against theological "loose cannons," etc. as the OP seems to imply, then why, pray tell, are our pulpits so rife with all manner of novelty and non-confessional teaching?

 

[earl40]

I both value and believe in Presbyterian polity.
However, if Presbyterian government itself is inherently such a marvelous bulwark against theological "loose cannons," etc. as the OP seems to imply, then why, pray tell, are our pulpits so rife with all manner of novelty and non-confessional teaching?

Being a layman I would love to hear you and the other pastors here opinions on why this is so.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

My guess in part at least because Presbyterianism not faithfully and consistently and biblically exercised is no better than not being Presbyterian.

I both value and believe in Presbyterian polity.
However, if Presbyterian government itself is inherently such a marvelous bulwark against theological "loose cannons," etc. as the OP seems to imply, then why, pray tell, are our pulpits so rife with all manner of novelty and non-confessional teaching?

 

[Gforce9]

I came from a pop-evangelical background and from denominations or affiliations that had no real connection between the local or broader church (the fact that I "church-hopped" so many times with zero accountability or reproof should be enough to see the <lack of> government failed miserably). I share Richards lament and frustration at it's results. I also understand Ben and Chris's frustration with a "proper" government that acts like a hierarchy, golfer's club, or is run by the theologically liberal. I have seen this before. I choose to submit to a government I believe is ordained and proper and pray that my session, presbytery, and the broader church remains faithful and disciplines the unfaithful to repentance or throws them out on there ear.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Charles G. Finney was ordained as a Presbyterian, therefore your argument is invalid.

(Tongue in cheek)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I purposefully avoid chest thumping at times like this. I agree with Ben that our form of government, in itself, cannot avoid similar problems. I can even point to "party spirit" issues that have prevented the proper discipline of some men who clearly teach FV theology. I think the ordinances of God are, in many ways, "fruitful" for those who make use of them. A Presbytery is not a "means of grace" per se but I do believe that men, even within our Church, can fail to make use of the blessing of plurality.

- I've witnessed TE's who stand on the floor of Presbytery and take a "...I don't care what any of you say, I'm going with Scripture on this one..." as if none of the other men have concern for the same.
- A good number of RE's I know are completely ambivalent about Presbytery altogether and consider the deliberations as boring or not really something they care to participate in.
- One can come at Presbytery with only a "warrior" mentality where those who disagree are combatants and not those one needs to persuade. If, at the end of the discussion, every side merely takes the "Here I stand!" position then nobody is really listening or being persuaded.

Presbyterianism is tough, even at the Session level, because it requires a level of patience that takes some time to develop. It's even more challenging at the Presbytery or GA level when it is easy to give in to the idea that you're not dealing with fellow Churchmen but factions that you need to contend with. It's one thing to write about the beauty of Presbyterian government but it's another thing to be in the midst of it, be wiling to participate in it, and even have faith that the Lord is using it to not only purify His Church but also to sanctify *me* in the process.

 

[Romans922]

REALITY 1: Presbyterianism is the Biblical form of church ecclesiology. Thus it should/must be practiced.


REALITY 2: Those men who are part of the courts of Christ's Church are sinners, no matter how holy anyone thinks they may be. Some even who are not Christians.

REALITY 3: All Church courts ought to follow the great principle of Sola Scriptura.

REALITY 4: Within the Standards, as it shows in Scripture, church courts do err at times.

 

[MW]

My guess in part at least because Presbyterianism not faithfully and consistently and biblically exercised is no better than not being Presbyterian.

Agreed. The first tenet of Presbyterianism is the exclusive headship of Christ.

 

[Wayne]

A recent post on the value of Presbyterian polity :

http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2014/10/october-12-2/