# What is the Point of Belonging to a Denomination?



## McPatrickClan (Dec 13, 2009)

I'm really just curious... I am in the PCA and have been for about two years now. I know it's more than just a Christian "gang" but is the point essentially to have the higher courts to appeal to & that's about it?


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 13, 2009)

Accountability is definitely an important aspect of it, but there is so much more as well! It serves as a visible expression of the union that Christ's church should have. It opens up many opportunities for missions, church planting, publishing, teaching, and education. It also makes it possible to have strong and cohesive colleges, seminaries, and camps. Plus, it reminds us that we are not limited to the local work of our own individual, autonomous church. Rather we are a part of the kingdom of God that stretches across the world. It reminds us that we stand in a grand tradition that we must carry on in faithfulness to Christ!


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 13, 2009)

If you believe as Mr. Calvin at least implied, that church discipline is one of the essential marks of a true church, one needs a mechanism for that beyond the local church.

It would be theoretically possible to limit church discipline (moral and doctrine) to only one church by itself, but there would be no practical way to appeal or have an unbiased "spiritual jury of peers."

Another is, the practical need to have a broader group confessing the same thing. If every particular church independently determined its confession, there would be little practical effect on its locality, let alone the world.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 13, 2009)

To avoid, as much as possible, the heinous sin of schism.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 13, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> To avoid, as much as possible, the heinous sin of schism.



That is to be sure true yet I truly believe we are far from honoring the positive side of that by our absurd notion of 30 "Presbyterian" denominations in the U.S. and Canada that have little to no good reason to be separate.


----------



## McPatrickClan (Dec 13, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> If you believe as Mr. Calvin at least implied, that church discipline is one of the essential marks of a true church, one needs a mechanism for that beyond the local church.
> 
> It would be theoretically possible to limit church discipline (moral and doctrine) to only one church by itself, but there would be no practical way to appeal or have an unbiased "spiritual jury of peers."



This is what I am thinking is the strongest reason to have it. However, I am bit frustrated by what I have seen over my early years as a Christian. Often, I see denominational distinctions drawn over seemingly minor differences (i.e. PCA & EPC being different over female deacons? Primitive Baptists vs. Southern Baptists over the salaried compensation of Teaching Pastors?). I am just wondering, as a 32-year-old, if the wave is moving away from denominations. I know that a lot of churches believe that, though I have to admit that they are all congregationalists and have nowhere near the infrastructure of a group like the PCA. 

It just seems like so much of what happens in many denominations is almost self-defeating exercises in rote processes. I mean, if I am trying to persuade my 20-something pals to join a Reformed denomination, what is the benefit to sell them on? Higher courts and that's it? That's good but until you have been through an ugly fight in a church, it's hard to explain how helpful your fathers and brothers can be.


----------



## Wayne (Dec 13, 2009)

Any form of Presbyterianism, including the continental Reformed, provides that tier of church courts which ideally serve to protect congregants and pastors alike.

Denominations exist because we are sinful. We look at the Scriptures and come to different conclusions. But there is a dilemma here. God is the source of all truth, and that truth is one, absolute, perfect. So what do we do with our differences? To deny our convictions is to deny truth. Our unity as Christians is in Christ. Nothing can or should interfere with that unity. But every careful student of Scripture is going to have studied convictions, and to say that doctrine doesn't matter is to strike at the very character of God. 

Liberalism seeks unity by sweeping truth under the rug, seeking to create unions of denominations by denying essential doctrines. From Schliermacher on, the Christian faith is reduced to a mere philosophy. It is a minimalist approach which negates truth as truth in an effort to create or even force a unity upon disparate groups.

Godly, mature conservatives, on the other hand, retain their convictions but learn to work with Christians in other denominations, so far as possible. We simply have points at which we retreat to our own circles for some things. The Puritan Board is an excellent example of a conservative ecumenical forum. We each retain our convictions, but pray for one another, listen, argue, and fellowship with one another. Jointly we will not back down from the truth of God's Word, but individually we have differences over what the Scriptures teach and this divides us to some measure as we continue to search the Scriptures. We will not readily give up our convictions unless convinced from Scripture of the truth of a particular doctrine and we would not have it any other way. One day we will all have the mind of Christ.


----------



## Edward (Dec 13, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> Often, I see denominational distinctions drawn over seemingly minor differences (i.e. PCA & EPC being different over female deacons?



That shows a fairly comprehensive lack of understanding of the situation. 

1. The EPC allows ordination of women to all offices, not just the diaconate. 

2. The EPC has greater allowance for tongues than does the PCA. 

Neither of these is a 'minor' difference.



> Administrator, Southwest Church Planting Network (PCA)



Now THERE's a position that wouldn't exist for a non-denominational church.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 13, 2009)

Edward said:


> McPatrickClan said:
> 
> 
> > Often, I see denominational distinctions drawn over seemingly minor differences (i.e. PCA & EPC being different over female deacons?
> ...



Just as a minor point of clarification the EPC has Presbyteries that _do not_ ordain women as Elders. It is an issue for each individual Presbytery.


----------



## Wayne (Dec 13, 2009)

Just to meddle a bit outside my own immediate territory, what is to prevent all of the exclusive psalmody groups from merging? If the many EP micro-denominations were to merge into the RPCNA, it might almost double the size of the RPCNA. The resulting denomination would have much greater strength, missions capability, etc.

Legitimate objections???


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 13, 2009)

Wayne said:


> Any form of Presbyterianism, including the continental Reformed, provides that tier of church courts which ideally serve to protect congregants and pastors alike.
> 
> Denominations exist because we are sinful. We look at the Scriptures and come to different conclusions. But there is a dilemma here. God is the source of all truth, and that truth is one, absolute, perfect. So what do we do with our differences? To deny our convictions is to deny truth. Our unity as Christians is in Christ. Nothing can or should interfere with that unity. But every careful student of Scripture is going to have studied convictions, and to say that doctrine doesn't matter is to strike at the very character of God.
> 
> ...



Wayne, exceedingly well said!


----------



## McPatrickClan (Dec 13, 2009)

Edward said:


> McPatrickClan said:
> 
> 
> > > Administrator, Southwest Church Planting Network (PCA)
> ...


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Dec 13, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> > Any form of Presbyterianism, including the continental Reformed, provides that tier of church courts which ideally serve to protect congregants and pastors alike.
> ...



  Nicely put.


----------



## Wayne (Dec 13, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> > well said!
> ...


----------



## Edward (Dec 13, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > McPatrickClan said:
> ...



Yes, that should have been my point 3 - a much higher level of local option, at least on paper.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Dec 13, 2009)

Wayne said:


> . . .well, I worked on it.
> 
> [we really need a smilie who sheepishly puts his foot out and makes little circles in the dirt: The "Awe Shucks" Smilie.]
> 
> Thank you for the kind words. You too, Nicki.



This may be the closest...  lol


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe as Mr. Calvin at least implied, that church discipline is one of the essential marks of a true church, one needs a mechanism for that beyond the local church.
> ...



I wouldn't be trying to sell them on a Reformed denomination, but rather a Reformed doctrine.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 14, 2009)

1. Viewing the church as larger than the local congregation is the Biblical pattern -- at a time when most people walked (or sailed) most everywhere, you still see an intense interest and involvement in the other congregations in the first century church. You see an intense love for the brethren, financial support, correction, encouragement, and teaching to encourage sound doctrine.

2. A Presbyterian form of government recognizes our sinful nature. No one man is expected to lead -- a plurality of elders, and at the regional level, presbyters, creates a system of accountability, encouragement, continuity, and an opportunity to submit to one another in love.


----------



## McPatrickClan (Dec 14, 2009)

Yes, they are already Calvinistic but I guess not Reformed.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 14, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe as Mr. Calvin at least implied, that church discipline is one of the essential marks of a true church, one needs a mechanism for that beyond the local church.
> ...



The issue of female deacons is absolutely a reason to remain distinct. Distinctions and convictions are important and worth remaining separate over. Abandonment therefrom for the sake of unity ends in apostasy. See generally PCUSA. Ought the Baptists and Presbyterians form one denomination? No one would be able to agree on who is to be baptized. One side would "lose" and then be subjected to a practice that they clearly are convicted is unscriptural. I'd rather keep the separation.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 14, 2009)

> *McPatrickClan*
> This is what I am thinking is the strongest reason to have it. However, I am bit frustrated by what I have seen over my early years as a Christian. Often, I see denominational distinctions drawn over seemingly minor differences (i.e. PCA & EPC being different over female deacons? Primitive Baptists vs. Southern Baptists over the salaried compensation of Teaching Pastors?). I am just wondering, as a 32-year-old, if the wave is moving away from denominations. I know that a lot of churches believe that, though I have to admit that they are all congregationalists and have nowhere near the infrastructure of a group like the PCA.



Sometimes, Christianity is spoken of in terms of "just believing in Jesus." But for reformed theology, it's about confessing doctrine from the whole of Scripture because God commands us to "worship Him in spirit and in truth."

We are not free to misrepresent God, his law, his plan of redemption according to our own imaginations. The third use of the law, according to Calvin was the law as a "mirror" of the Christian life.

Our interaction as Christians is based on the gospel. But most interaction is discipling in the full counsel of God's Word. If we neglected that, we would miss a primary focus of the church- sanctification and I think even miss part of the "Great Commission" (which is to preach the Gospel and "teach these things.").

Your illustration of the EPC v PCA is an illustration of the point.

Several have cited certain specific differences but there is a most important one, in my understanding. 

That denomination would ground itself on the notion that the whole of the Westminster Standards (that's the doctrines of grace, covenant theology, and the Confession itself) are "nonessentials."

That is not to say there are not Christians there, nor that the denomination does not follow Scripture more than the mainline denomination it is departing from.

But to make your whole system of doctrine "nonessential" is to make oneself ambiguous and unable to disciple. 

It would be like an employee with a job description saying that, "the important thing is he shows up on time, 'works hard' and stays his full shift. Everything else are nonessentials."

Well, obviously its important what the employee is doing while there, and whether it is furthering the productivity and value goals of the company in this eyes of his management. They are not paying him, the shareholders are not investing in him, just to "keep busy" in his own self-determined way.

The unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement in reformed theology. 

That's part of a theology centered on God, informed by His revealed Word.

Now we live in a culture, in a generation that rationalizes that it is somehow "more spiritual" to not do the hard work of informing and applying all of Scripture to all of life. So we say, as long as we "believe in Jesus" nothing else really matters. Look at how specifically God deals with Israel in the Old Testament to know how untrue that is!

Reformed theology picks up on the "ordinary means of grace" to build our faith. These are the ways God has provided for His people to grow, which includes reading and studying and applying His Word. If that doesn't matter (because everyone is free to ignore, disobey or judge it irrelevant), then we are denying a central tenet of the Christian life.

Allowing, independent individual development of theology with the implication that one (e.g. a brand new person with no teaching) is as good as any other tends toward disunity, and acts against maturing in the faith, e.g. sanctification.

It also makes likely disunity over doctrine and a likely future split. This is likely to happen in a denomination that does not authoritatively face a biblical issue like whether God has qualified women to rule over and teach authority over men, either as obedience to Scripture or reflective of the priority in Creation. (I don't believe refusing to follow these will lead to God's blessing, nor unity).


----------



## A.J. (Dec 14, 2009)

In Charles Hodge's address What is Presbyterianism?, he explains: 



> III. As then presbyters are all of the same rank, and as they exercise their power in the government of the Church, in connection with the people, or their representatives, this of necessity gives rise to Sessions in our individual congregations, and to Presbyteries, Synods, and Assemblies, for the exercise of more extended jurisdiction. This brings into view the third great principle of Presbyterianism, the government of the Church by judicatories composed of presbyters and elders, &c. This takes for granted the unity of the Church in opposition to the theory of the Independents.
> 
> The Presbyterian doctrine on this subject is, that *the Church is one in such a sense that a smaller part is subject to a larger, and the larger to the whole. It has one Lord, one faith, one baptism. The principles of government laid down in the Scriptures bind the whole Church. The terms of dmission, and the legitimate grounds of exclusion, are everywhere the same. The same qualifications are everywhere to be demanded for admission to the sacred office, and the same grounds for deposition. Every man who is properly received as a member of a particular church, becomes a member of the Church universal; every one rightfully excluded from a particular church, is excluded from the whole Church; every one rightfully ordained to the ministry in one church, is a minister of the universal Church, and when rightfully deposed in one, he ceases to be a minister in any.* Hence, while every particular church has a right to manage its own affairs and administer its own discipline, it cannot be independent and irresponsible in the exercise of that right. *As its members are members of the Church universal, and those whom it excommunicates are, according to the Scriptural theory, delivered unto Satan, and cut off from the communion of the saints, the acts of a particular church become the acts of the whole Church, and therefore the whole has the right to see that they are performed according to the law of Christ.* Hence, on the one hand, the right of appeal; and, on the other, the right of review and control.
> 
> ...



Thanks to Mr. Sparkman for preparing this electronic edition of Hodge's address!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 14, 2009)

Zenas said:


> McPatrickClan said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...


----------



## JDKetterman (Dec 14, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> Yes, they are already Calvinistic but I guess not Reformed.



Before I became Reformed, I was Calvinistic in my doctrine of salvation. I believe what sold me into going to a Reformed faith/denomination was the doctrine of the church and sacraments. This was something for me that I did not get from my evangelical upbringing.


----------



## Dao (Dec 14, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> What is the Point of Belonging to a Denomination?



I don't get non-denomination. They say they're creedless and at the same time follow whatever the pastor believes. That goes for SBC. They believe in creedless and yet have pages of written statements of beliefs they don't even keep.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 14, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> I'm really just curious... I am in the PCA and have been for about two years now. I know it's more than just a Christian "gang" but is the point essentially to have the higher courts to appeal to & that's about it?



For Baptists, one of the main reasons is to show _unity_ with churches of like faith and order. 

-----Added 12/14/2009 at 11:33:02 EST-----



Dao said:


> That goes for SBC. They believe in creedless and yet have pages of written statements of beliefs they don't even keep.



As a Southern Baptist I can say this simply isn't true. The vast majority of Baptists throughout history and today are creedal or confessional. Now there are certainly exceptions to this but they are not representative of the whole. Consider the SBC's official position statement on creeds and confessions:



> *Creeds & Confessions*
> 
> In some groups, statements of belief have the same authority as Scripture. We call this creedalism. Baptists also make statements of belief, but all of them are revisable in light of Scripture. The Bible is the final word.
> 
> Because of this distinction, we are generally more comfortable with the word "confession." Still, we are "creedal" in the sense that we believe certain things, express those beliefs and order our institutions accordingly. There have always been Baptist limits. And within these limits, there have always been Baptist preferences.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Dec 14, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> I'm really just curious... I am in the PCA and have been for about two years now. I know it's more than just a Christian "gang" but is the point essentially to have the higher courts to appeal to & that's about it?



I joined the PCA because I believe that it is the most biblical denomination I could join. I share a common confession with them. 

So since I trust them and believe they are faithful men to the gospel I willingly place myself as a layman under their authority that they have received from Christ through his church of believers because I believe that is biblical.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2009)

For consistent Confessional subscription regardless of geographical location.

Except maybe NY.... and CA.... and LA.... and SD.... and... well... _nevermind_.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Dec 14, 2009)

Somewhat off-topic, and splitting hairs perhaps, but am I correct in stating that one isn't a member of a denomination, but rather one is a member of a congregation, and that local church is a member of the deonomination? For example, I'm a member of Woodgreen Presbyterian, which is part of the PCA. "I" am technically not a member of the PCA. If true for the PCA, is this also true for other denominations?

Obviously, what deonomination the local church belongs to is one factor to take into consideration in becoming a member of that congregation.

As to why a local church should be part of a larger denomination, I think that the posters have given good answers: commonality of purpose / pooling resources, unity of the church, greater degree of accountability for its leadership etc...


----------



## Scottish Lass (Dec 14, 2009)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Somewhat off-topic, and splitting hairs perhaps, but am I correct in stating that one isn't a member of a denomination, but rather one is a member of a congregation, and that local church is a member of the deonomination? For example, I'm a member of Woodgreen Presbyterian, which is part of the PCA. "I" am technically not a member of the PCA. If true for the PCA, is this also true for other denominations?
> 
> Obviously, what deonomination the local church belongs to is one factor to take into consideration in becoming a member of that congregation.
> 
> As to why a local church should be part of a larger denomination, I think that the posters have given good answers: commonality of purpose / pooling resources, unity of the church, greater degree of accountability for its leadership etc...



And to add to that, pastors are members of the presbytery, not the local congregation...


----------



## Dao (Dec 14, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> As a Southern Baptist I can say this simply isn't true. The vast majority of Baptists throughout history and today are creedal or confessional.



I didn't know. I thought they're not a confessional church. I guess many churches are confessional.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 14, 2009)

Dao said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> > As a Southern Baptist I can say this simply isn't true. The vast majority of Baptists throughout history and today are creedal or confessional.
> ...



of the SBC congregations I grew up in, they all gave lip service to the Baptist Faith and Message, but that was about it.


----------



## JoeRe4mer (Dec 27, 2009)

McPatrickClan said:


> I'm really just curious... I am in the PCA and have been for about two years now. I know it's more than just a Christian "gang" but is the point essentially to have the higher courts to appeal to & that's about it?



I think that the main advantage to being connected to a denomination is that there is, generally speaking, a much more honest statement about biblical doctrine on the the surface of it all. 

Many of these new "non-denominational" churches will hide what they believe as long as they can in an effort to not offend people. These kind also believe that doctrinal "labels" themselves are wrong, because they turn people away, or are too narrow.

As far as the idea that certain denominational structures help with local church discipline, I disagree. All to often people will just jump into a similar denomination without regard for any authority structure within their old denomination. Theoretically this should not happen, but more often than not it is the practical outcome when people disagree at the local level. 

I had a friend who was OPC for years and left on bad terms when the "appeals process" didn't work out his way.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Dec 27, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > McPatrickClan said:
> ...



I’m glad the EPC exists, especially for many of those congregations now leaving the PC(USA). Better they have a place to go than form a new denomination. The EPC is clear on the essentials of the gospel and offers a degree of accountability and cooperation. I was in the EPC for 16 years and found them supportive of my ministry, without requiring me to compromise my own distinctives.

That said, the EPC is a diverse group of several different theological cultures. The Presbytery of South Central is very different from the Presbytery of the West. There are confessional Presbyterians within the EPC who might fit well within the PCA or OPC. Others are broad evangelicals who function like semi-reformed, seeker sensitive, mega-church, congregationalists. 

The issue of women in office can not be resolved under the present EPC constitution. 

§17-5 Limitations in perpetuity: Certain rights are held in perpetuity by Christians, both individually and gathered in congregations. These rights must always be guaranteed by the Church. These rights include, but not by way of exclusion, the following:

A. The Church may make no laws to bind the conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture. No person may be rejected for membership or ordination because of such matters of conscience unless that matter has been officially declared a heresy by the Church, or unless it obstructs the constitutional governance of the Church.

B. The Church may make no laws that infringe on the rights of the particular church to elect its own officers, to own and control its own property, to determine its own benevolence and other budgetary objectives, and to determine its own internal life so long as it does not violate the constitution of the Church.

C. This section may be added to by the procedures set forth for amending the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, but no deletions may be made.​.​
Thus, the right of a congregation to elect and install women ruling elders is an un-amendable right held in perpetuity. The only way out is for the EPC to dissolve itself and individual congregations to join some other union. The potential problem grows with the reception of more PC(USA) congregations and women ministers. 

That said, I thank God for those who faithfully serve in the EPC.

-----Added 12/27/2009 at 11:47:27 EST-----



JoeRe4mer said:


> As far as the idea that certain denominational structures help with local church discipline, I disagree. All to often people will just jump into a similar denomination without regard for any authority structure within their old denomination. Theoretically this should not happen, but more often than not it is the practical outcome when people disagree at the local level.
> 
> I had a friend who was OPC for years and left on bad terms when the "appeals process" didn't work out his way.



A church practicing biblical discipline will not receive a member who "jumps ship" or is under discipline in another congregation or church court. NAPARC member denominations at least should function in this way.

Ascending courts restrain the potential injustice or tyranny of pastors and sessions.

Certainly there are good reasons to transfer to a body of another denomination. But, we should recognize the imperfect unity of the visible church and respect its courts and fraternal connections to whatever degree they act in accord with scripture. Associations like NAPARC and fraternal relations between denominations respect the unity of the visible church. Forming independent congregations or new denominations based upon extra-confessional distinctives is often sectarian. 

That said, the present disunity and lake of confessional agreement within some reformed denominations makes a mockery of what it means to be a denomination. Confessional consensus is lax and too broad in many. For example, it would be difficult for the PCA, OPC or URC to form a denominational seminary or college today; because there would not be a consensus on the distinctives to be taught. One can not always recommend a congregation of the same denomination to a family moving to another part of the country. There is a need for more consensus and uniformity in confession and worship.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 27, 2009)

> *Glenn Ferrell*
> For example, it would be difficult for the PCA, OPC or URC to form a denominational seminary or college today;



I understand you are aware the PCA has a denominational seminary (Covenant Seminary), somewhat that came through the RPES so I take this to mean starting a brand new one.

I don't know a great deal about the breadth of these denominations, but I thought the OPC and URC, in particular were close.

Couldn't one constitute a seminary with its permissible range of views, based on their constitution. I would think that quite possible in all three of these denominations.

Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Dec 27, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Can you elaborate on this?



The PCA inherited Covenant Seminary and Covenant College when they received the former RPCES denomination into their larger group. My comment has to do with forming a new denominational seminary.

As is, I suspect some PCA congregations and elders would have difficulty sending students to Covenant Seminary out of concern for certain distinctives taught there. 

At one time, Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia functioned as an OPC seminary, thought it was not organically connected with the denomination. Fewer OP congregations and elders would now give an unqualified endorsement to either Westminster.

The PCA, OPC and URC are denominations or federations of congregations without a consensus on many matters. All three are in NAPARC and agree on a core of confessional essentials. So, I’m not trying to lessen the unity which does exist between and among them. However, individuals and congregations in one group often find they have more in common with some from a different denomination than they do from their own. The PCA, being larger, has more diversity than the OPC or URC. 

I doubt much enthusiasm exists to create a broad seminary teaching a wide range of permissible views. Such already exist in non denominational seminaries- RTS, WTS, WSC, etc. 

This does not preclude like minded individuals and congregations from forming institutions with a narrower focus, as has happened with GPTS, MATS, PRTS, Northwest, etc.

Each of these denominations have rough definable boundaries of what is permitted and what is not in doctrine and practice, But, without a definite narrower consensus on many issues the purpose of a denomination is somewhat defeated.

Probably, twenty percent of PCA congregations would be comfortable within the OPC. Likewise, maybe twenty percent of OP congregations would be at home in the PCA. I don’t know the URC beyond the local congregations here in Idaho, but suspect they have something of the same diversity. But, there is enough lack of uniformity that a family moving from one city to another often finds a congregation of the same denomination they left unacceptable. One would expect ministers and members to be able to move from one part of the country to another and be able to plug into other congregations of their denomination. I don’t see this. 

A denominational seminary would help; one in which professors were approved by the General Assembly. But, before such a seminary can be founded, there needs to be a clear consensus on what it will teach, such as one finds at GPTS or PRTS. Otherwise, the financial support and students will not be there to support the new institution. Such does not exist in the present configuration of the PCA, OPC or URC.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 27, 2009)

I *think* that the URC and CanRef churches are closer than the OPC and URC at present. However, the CanRef churches already have a seminary, and I know that the URC utilizes the Mid-America Reformed Seminary for pulpit supply. (We had one of their students in our church this summer - very good!)


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Dec 28, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> ...I know that the URC utilizes the Mid-America Reformed Seminary for pulpit supply. (We had one of their students in our church this summer - very good!)



I have a generally positive opinion of Mid-America Seminary, and have been impressed by some recent graduates I've known. Though heavily influenced by the URC, I'd not consider it a denominational serminary.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 28, 2009)

> It just seems like so much of what happens in many denominations is almost self-defeating exercises in rote processes. I mean, if I am trying to persuade my 20-something pals to join a Reformed denomination, what is the benefit to sell them on? Higher courts and that's it? That's good but until you have been through an ugly fight in a church, it's hard to explain how helpful your fathers and brothers can be.



As a 20-something that just joined a Reformed denomination, I can tell you that I am having the same problem with my friends too. It breaks my heart because I know if they persevered for two Sundays (and actually stayed when they are invited for lunch or Sunday school) they would love it here.

What really opened my eyes were several things and it is exactly what my pastor has taught: the marks of a true church.

One of the most fundamental marks of the Church is love. (Great Commission: "...teaching them to _observe_ all that I have commanded you.") 
-In my church, we have lunch together and people invite people over on Sunday, even if you're new you get invited (it is planned in some way, I haven't figured it out yet). I must have looked really new because I got invited over for 8 straight weeks. 
-The pastors met with me at my school and talked to me about my life. These men have lots of their own children and a relatively large congregation to care for, but they made time to see me.
-Adults and young adults know and talk to each other. They are not segregated. (This is really helpful for someone like me, I'm not from a stable home. Plus, I'm learning older adults are not too different from me.)
-People there seek to obey the moral teachings of the Bible and show reverence for the things of God.
-I have no doubt that all of this has to do with the unapologetic acceptance of westminster standards and the excellent teachers of our church.
In an article my pastor wrote on the marks of the true church:



> There are two reasons why love marked by obedience is important. First of all these are issues of life and death. People have put their faith in what the Church preaches, often times at great sacrifice. They have built their lives on what they believe is the genuine gospel-that sincerely trusting in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sin and for eternal life will prove to be a realized hope. What we place in their hands and engender in their hearts must be real. To accomplish this a true church must faithfully fulfill all of her mission by training, encouraging, and directing true disciples of Jesus Christ. We must hold each other accountable to the marks of authenticity that Christ expects in the life of his church and his disciples.




Okay, thats enough about my church.  
(I can send you the rest of the article if you want. I think its on ref21.)


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 28, 2009)

*DeborahtheJudge *

I really appreciate what you are saying about how you have assimilated into your local church.

Especially, the idea of inviting people over for lunch. This is something we've been recipient of on occasion when we've traveled and found it a great blessing. It also helps us better keep the sabbath rather than go out to a restaurant on a Sunday when we are travelling.

Having a simple meal at church for visitors on the Lord's Day, inviting people over on the Lord's Day for a meal, particularly those who are new, or needy is a great way of furthering the covenant community and extending hospitality. Hospitality is a characteristic of Christians generally, and church officers particularly.

This is something we need to find a way to do, whether in a big city or small town, whether single or married, whether introverted or extroverted. We can find a way to do it for the Honor and Glory of our God.

And you are correct, love is a main characteristic of Christian communions.



> John 15:17
> 
> 17These things I command you, that ye love one another.



When we speak of the "true marks" of a church, Mr. Calvin described two as being essential, and a third he described implicitly as necessary for having a true church:

1) right teaching of God's Word
2) right administration of sacraments
3) church discipline

I also like what you say about different age groups mixing. This also is a (counter culture) way that the church is different, because of Christ. It's a powerful testimony we can take for granted.

Also, your Pastor visitation.

All new members get a two elder visitation in our local church practice, ordinarily in their home. 

From the standpoint of building covenant community, an annual home visit by two elders could be greatly used of God. It would encourage, connect, expose sin, knit together, etc.

Now keep in mind also the church is "the perfect place for imperfect people." Remember that when you see sin, and hypocrisy in the church. We're in it for the long haul, because of Christ, even when people can be hard to love.

That's part of the mark of a "true church" as well.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 28, 2009)

New Horizons

Found it. 

Scott -Yes, I agree.


----------

