# I have become a high-churchman!



## Neogillist (Sep 2, 2008)

I have officially become a high-churchman. By this I mean that my view of church office has become higher than it was as I now see the great benefits of belonging to a faithful and solid church federation, and have been taking a course on office-bearers at church. I would basically define high-churchmanship by the following:

1. The church consists of three ministerial offices including, ministers, elders and deacons. The role of the minister is to preach the gospel, and administer the sacraments, and he alone has the prerogative to do so through lawful ordination. Thus, it is unlawful for non-ministers to administer the Lord's Supper privately or baptize new converts, or preach the gospel. While lay-people may share the gospel with others and invite unbelievers to church, they may not attempt to preach to others or teach apart from the church's consent and authority. This especially means that no one has the right to pronounce himself a 'pastor' or 'evangelist' and start his own independent church. That is at the essence of sectarianism.

2. The church has Christ as the head and is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets to which the keys of the kingdom of heaven have been given to bind or loose (Mat. 18, 19). Thus any attempt to by-pass the authority of the church is an attempt to by-pass Christ. This means that so-called ministries that attempt to fulfil the role of the church (making new disciples, preaching the gospel, teaching, etc.) have no right to exist if they are not supported by one or more church federations that possess the marks of the true church. This means that while a ministry may be inter-denominational or non-denominational, it must be endosed and/or supported by one or more federations (such as URCNA, PCA, OPC, etc.) for it to have the right to exist. Thus for instance, Ligionier Ministries have the right to exist because all their teachers are ordained ministers or doctors from true church federations/seminaries and are supported by those federations. On the other hand, Campus Crusade for Christ has no right to exist because they try to fulfil the role of a church but are only a collection of lay-people trying to make new converts and equip believers apart from the church's consent and authority.

I trust that all Presbyterians and Reformed on this board will recognize that these two principles flow naturally out of the proper biblical form of church government. Those of you who hold to a two-office view may disagree with some of what I said, but note that the differences are minor if you distinguish between ruling vs teaching elders. In the case where you have only 'elders' the office of minister and elder is joined, and in this case, the elder works really as a minister.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 2, 2008)

I don't fully understand what gives the PCA or the URCNA the right to exist and preach/disciple believers, but not Campus Crusade.

May my friends and I not get together, eat food, talk about the scriptures, pray together, and admonish each other (equipping each other in a sense) without having the Church's permission? My wife and I meet with 5 other couples on Saturday mornings for this sort of thing. If so, which Church should we ask?


----------



## Neogillist (Sep 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Woohoo!
> 
> I don't fully understand what gives the PCA or the URCNA the right to exist and preach/disciple believers, but not Campus Crusade.
> 
> May my friends and I not get together, eat food, talk about the scriptures, pray together, and admonish each other (equipping each other in a sense) without having the Church's permission? My wife and I meet with 5 other couples on Saturday mornings for this sort of thing. If so, which Church should we ask?



Of course you may Davidius. That is not like having holy communion with your friends at home. You will have to read without stumbling on my individual words, as sometimes my semantics are clumsy. Just make sure you don't form your own little click within your church and neglect fellowship with other members.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 2, 2008)

Neogillist said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Woohoo!
> ...



Thanks for your answer. Wouldn't there then theoretically be no problem with Campus Crusade, either, unless it somehow discourages believers from becoming part of local churches?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 2, 2008)

Jean-David,

Thanks for your remarks above. And yours also, Davidius.

Now what happens if I leave this country, and the church in which I serve (as a ruling elder functioning as a teaching elder), and move to a locale where there is no sound church at all. I could be thinking of an area in America where there are some churches but all are apostate, or a foreign field where there is nothing. What would you suggest I do?

I would, after consulting the Lord (assuming His approval), seek to evangelize souls to Him and form, first, a Bible Study or fellowship group of some sort, and, given enough souls, a worshipping community.

What do you think?

Steve


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 2, 2008)

WHEW!!! I thought you were going to start talking about the beauty of candles and incense in the worship service!


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 2, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> WHEW!!! I thought you were going to start talking about the beauty of candles and incense in the worship service!



Me too. I thought "High church" had more to do with Liturgy.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 2, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> . . . I would, after consulting the Lord (assuming His approval), seek to evangelize souls to Him and form, first, a Bible Study or fellowship group of some sort, and, given enough souls, a worshipping community.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Steve



Isn't church planting to be done under the auspices of a mother (or sending) church? If so, it is obvious that the process has meager beginnings with a view to establishing a local church and recognizing (and appointing) Elders.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Sep 2, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jean-David,
> 
> Thanks for your remarks above. And yours also, Davidius.
> 
> ...



I think that sounds about right. The only thing I would urge adding to that (somewhere along the way) is making a "Macedonian call " type of request of some established solid reformed or presbyterian denomination to "come over and help us."

There is much good to be gained be being part of a presbytery!




 My presbyterianism is showing again!


----------



## Zenas (Sep 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> I don't fully understand what gives the PCA or the URCNA the right to exist and preach/disciple believers, but not Campus Crusade.
> 
> May my friends and I not get together, eat food, talk about the scriptures, pray together, and admonish each other (equipping each other in a sense) without having the Church's permission? My wife and I meet with 5 other couples on Saturday mornings for this sort of thing. If so, which Church should we ask?



I havn't read replies to this, so someone might have something better to say, but I think what you're lacking in that context is an overseeing body to shepherd the lot of you.

You individually may have this in the form of your own congregation and leadership, however, nothing like this is present for the group as a whole and so there can be no over-sight or discipline should something arise. You are, in a sense, a loose self-governing affiliation with no one to check up on you but yourselves. I say this because at first glance, it offends my Presbyterian sensibilities of government and the foundation that man is sinful and can and often is wrong, ergo there must be a government in place to check and balance, so to speak, the group, and govern like the shepherds should. 

There are groups like RUF which are the same thing as Campus Crusade for Christ, however, RUF is overseen by the PCA. Ordained PCA ministers lead the groups, and each minister's goal is to have their students as members in a Christian congregation. The PCA are the ones who oversee the RUF groups and provide an upper level of leadership that I think Campus Crusade lacks. (I'm not familiar with them so I'm only assuming here.)


----------



## Ron (Sep 2, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jean-David,
> 
> Thanks for your remarks above. And yours also, Davidius.
> 
> ...



Steve,

Nobody says you must be a member of a "sound" church. You are to be a member of a _true _church though. How about the churches at Corinth, Laodicea and Galatia? Do you have in mind a true church that is less "sound" than these? Even if you do, you still must belong to a true church. Now of course if there is no true church where you plan to move, then I would suggest that you not move to that locale, or else be sent and plant a church quickly! 

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Sep 2, 2008)

Can you provide some Biblical support for your described office of "minister" as something separate from either elder or deacon?

I see no Biblical teaching/ruling elder distinction if that plays a part in your response, though I do see that there are elders who rule and/or teach.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 2, 2008)

Larry Wilson (OPC, Indianapolis) has written in _Ordained Servant_--and I think the argument is persuasive--that the best argument for the office of minister is not embedded in the list of qualifications for the elders, but the *letters* themselves to Timothy and Titus.

Scattered throughout the letters are quite a few specific directions, apostolic injunctions, that are laid on them as office-bearers. Take for example just this one: "Preach the Word!" (2Tim4:2). That is not a direction to "the elders" of the church, or to the church as a whole, but to the herald.

This in no way suggests that the list of qualifications for elder does not apply to the minister as well. All the duties of lesser offices are originally in Christ, the Head, and likewise whatever duties have been delegated down to one office are still the responsibility of that office. Hence, if a church has no deacons, the duties of the diaconate are resumed by the elders (i.e. the duties do not disappear).

Therefore, the qualities of the elder (who may not "labor in the word and in doctrine") are the same qualities that must characterize the minister, and there are more qualities than just those in that listing. The elder is also a deacon. The minister is also an elder and a deacon.


----------



## Neogillist (Sep 2, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jean-David,
> 
> Thanks for your remarks above. And yours also, Davidius.
> 
> ...



My response is that before you leave the solid church you are presently part of, you should look about the area you would like to move and ensure that there is a true church that you could join there. Now, if there is no true church in the area you would like to move, then you should not go there, unless you happened to be sent by your federation to start a church plant somewhere there is no true church. (By a true church I mean one that bears the marks of the true church, i.e.: the proper administration of the sacraments and the right preaching of the gospel). The idea is that we ought not try to become self-ordained missionaries, pastors, etc, evangelizing without proper oversight from a true church, because then we are by-passing Christ's authority and placing ourselves above his headship. If only Protestants could have followed this rule, we would not have ended up so divided as we are now. But the large majority of Protestants just have a very low view of the church where being a member means little more than attending a local church once in a while.


----------



## Neogillist (Sep 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Neogillist said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



For the case of Campus Crusade, they work quite differently from you in that they would have you become a 'group leader' over your other friends and you would be teaching them some bible study material (which is very unreformed by the way) such as Cru.com and 'discipling them'. You yourself would be 'discipled' by another superintendent whom you would meet once a week and who would be praying with you and for you. Through their campaign of "Spiritual Multiplication" they would also encourage you to go out on the streets and hand out flyers that tell people how they can make a decision for Christ. When I used to be part of them, they would even tell us never to invite people to church before they have made this kind of 'decision' or commitment. They say that church is a bad place for making new converts since too many spiritual cliches are used and there is too much structure that slow-down people from a simple relationship with God. Now they do encourage people to join a church, but they first want them to accept their agenda and be 'discipled' by them before they do so. You see by now how they are by-passing the authority of Christ's headship and working as a sectary.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 3, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jean-David,
> 
> Thanks for your remarks above. And yours also, Davidius.
> 
> ...



I think that you are right on the money, and so also would have our Protestant forbears. 

I'm feeling too lazy right now to list the exact references (besides, it will help you all in developing your research skills to look it up on your own), but William Perkins, Francis Turretin, and John Owen all are clear regarding the duty that flows from Christian love for individuals to take upon themselves the task of preaching the Gospel, establishing congregations, and even (gasp!) administering the sacraments (it's in Turretin specifically, go check it out). Anything that would restrict this based upon some notion of there not being a "valid ordination" is a Romish doctrine, says Turretin.

These men apply this even to individuals who have never been previously ordained (unlike Steve), and they make note of the fact that there is a direct calling of Christ upon his ministers in irregular/destitute situations (acknowledging that ordination by presbytery is only a formal recognition of those whom Christ has already called and gifted for the task). 

Turretin's stuff is near the beginning of vol. 3 of his _Institutes_, other than that, you're on your own. I know that I've posted this stuff here before anyway if you are willing to use the search button.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 3, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Anything that would restrict this based upon some notion of there not being a "valid ordination" is a Romish doctrine, says Turretin.



When Turretin is at variance with the productions of Westminster, I don't have a hard time choosing.

If I'm not mistaken (and I'd gladly admit if I am) he is at variance on this point.

Cheers,


----------



## nicnap (Sep 3, 2008)

Archlute said:


> I'm feeling too lazy right now to list the exact references (besides, it will help you all in developing your research skills to look it up on your own), but



Sorry...just found this sentence funny.


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 3, 2008)

> Anything that would restrict this based upon some notion of there not being a "valid ordination" is a Romish doctrine, says Turretin.



Yep.


----------



## AVT (Sep 3, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Neogillist said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



Davidius,

For several years I served as an IVCF staff (a Parachurch organization ) like Campus Crusade for Christ . IVCF has a policy never to remove people from the local church, all of us from different backgrounds, nationalities, professions belong to a local church. IVCF specializes in starting a student led movement
among campuses and students themselves are trained to lead Bible studies. Even our school activities are scheduled so as not to conflict with Church activities. We cooperate with Pastors and local churches and don't compete as a rule.

IVCF teaches that they must serve and be a part of the local church and never to disengage from it and be separate because it is the body of Christ.

Also, students will graduate and will disband from their IVCF Chapter in school. The organization is a transient support for students while they are on campus and are away from home.
So, it is a must to belong to a church. We were never conflicted with the local churches in our policies and many churches are blessed with mature IVCF graduates in their midst.

IVCF enjoys the support of many Pastors and local churches. It is a blessing to have good relationship and testimony among the local churches.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 3, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Anything that would restrict this based upon some notion of there not being a "valid ordination" is a Romish doctrine, says Turretin.
> ...



I would not say that he is at variance. 

Notice that WCF 31.1 says "For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils: and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ has given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church."

This assumes 1) that the church (which has been previously defined in 25.2 as "all those throughout the world who profess the true religion; and of their children") is in existence prior to the formation of these synods, that 2) these synods _ought_ to exist, but are not necessary, and that 3) the synods are for _better_ government, and _further_ edification, not that there can be no true government or edification apart from them. 

What the WCF is describing is the ideal of the broader church in a well ordered state of affairs. What Perkins, Turretin, and Owen are describing (and what Steve is addressing) is the work of the gospel when there is no broader church structure in place, or even where there is no Christian witness at all. The WCF addresses only the norm, the ideal, without making any binding statements regarding situations outside of that ideal.

As well, in section 4-5 of the PCA's BCO, specific encouragement is given to Christians whose "lot has been cast in destitute regions" to meet regularly for the worship of God. If a PCA commission came across a functional church in the nether regions of the Pacific NW, they would not then tell them that they were no true church due to the fact that they had not been lawfully appointed and overseen by a "proper" authority. For whose authority can be more proper than that of the Lord Jesus Christ, and who else can inspire the heart to praise and proclaim him than his own Holy Spirit?


----------



## Neogillist (Sep 3, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> > Anything that would restrict this based upon some notion of there not being a "valid ordination" is a Romish doctrine, says Turretin.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.



Sorry, but you should read the following on lawful ordination, where Dr. McMahon also quotes from Turretin in the proper light: Lawful Ordination  - Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

This essay has played an important role in shaping my views on church office.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 3, 2008)

Neogillist said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > > Anything that would restrict this based upon some notion of there not being a "valid ordination" is a Romish doctrine, says Turretin.
> ...




I read it, and I think that in part you are misreading some of what Matt was saying about Turretin, and in part I think that Matt was misreading/misapplying Turretin himself. It is a bit of an anachronism to attempt to appropriate Turretin's diatribe against disruptive and fanatical Anabaptist habits to the ecclesiastical independency that followed. Turretin and Owen (the congregationalist) were contemporaries, and I do not believe that I have ever read anything from the former that could be seen as directed toward the governmental practice of the latter.

Remember, you have to read the works of a systematician in the same manner that you would read the Scriptures - by considering the parts in light of the whole. Unless Turretin was being extremely inconsistent with himself, and with a mind as sharp as he had been given, and especially since both of these discussions take place within the same section of his _Institutes_, I would be very skeptical of your and Matt's reading of him on this point. I do not find it very credible that he would approve of formally independent and organizationally uncalled men to do the work of the gospel in needy regions on the one hand, and then turn that on its head by saying that any formally uncalled ministry is unlawful and in error. I have not read that section in a year or so, but it is still pretty clear to my memory that he was speaking of men coming into a congregation, and forcing themselves upon the people in a disruptive manner under the pretense that God had called them to do so (again, in Anabaptist fashion). His target in that section was not men who come into a situation to care for a church w/o a minister, and who yet had not been formally ordained by a presbytery/synod. Again, how could he be saying that when in the same section he approves of that sort of independent activity under the compulsion of Christian love and Gospel duty? 

It helps to read things in context, not only historically speaking (which would have helped you out a lot here), but also in considering the whole of an author's thought on a subject, especially when it occurs in the same section as that from which you were attempting to make your point. Turretin was not merely writing that for the sake of making a defense of the Reformers calling, as he addresses more general and theoretical situations as well. I believe that he even spells it out by illustrating it in such a manner as "suppose that a Christian man is washed up on the shore of some heathen Island" or something like that. He was addressing more than just Reformation events.

One thing is clear. Turretin does indeed say that it is lawful for a man in those irregular circumstances not only to preach the Word, but also to administer the sacraments, and that those who would deny this hold to a Romish doctrine of ordination.

So Lawrence's "yep" still holds.

If you want to read the man himself you can find it in his _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_ book 3, topic 18, question 23, sections 13-23 (but don't expect me to do any more of your homework - you'll have to look up Owen and Perkins on your own time!).


----------

