PCA BCO question

[tcalbrecht]

BCO 12-5d says the Session has power, "To call congregational meetings when necessary; to establish and control Sunday schools and Bible classes with special reference to the children of the church; to establish and control all special groups in the church such as Men in the Church, Women in the Church and special Bible study groups; to promote world missions; to promote obedience to the Great Commission in its totality at home and abroad; to order collections for pious uses;"

Does the phrase "to establish and control all special groups in the church such as Men in the Church, Women in the Church and special Bible study groups" mean that the Session has the power to control any and all Bible studies of the members, or only those Bible studies specifically initiated by the Session? In other words,, if a member wanted to start a neighborhood Bible study to reach out with the gospel, would they need permission from the Session to do so? If so, on what basis could a Session reasonably refuse such a request? If a Session refused permission or never responded to a request, would it be considered insubordination to hold a study anyway?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Tom,
I would say: No, the session does not oversee a private member's neighborhood Bible Study, but only those that session institutes or is permitted to take chage of.

The issue would be identification. There is no move by the church to establish the Bible study. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Bible study, or the member of the church who is leading it (even if it is an officer), to associate the church with the study. If every meeting of even two people, one or more of whom was a church member, constituted an official church relation, not even personal evangelism could be done without a phone call to the session. Otherwise, family devotions would also have to be "overseen" by the session too.

It's all or nothing. Either the church is in control and fully responsible, or it has to remain conceptually and formally separate. Of course, this begs a question: what would an officer be doing establishing a Bible study in his neighborhood without making it a work of the church?

I can envision a private church member setting up a study, just to reach out to his community, to develop ties, to interest unbelievers in the gospel, with the intent of leading them to join a good church, just not necessarily his own. His circumstances might justify such an occasion.

What if he approaches the session to get their oversight, and they won't or can't offer it? Should he not have the study, even if the session hasn't forbidden it? For example, the session could have a policy that church Bible studies must be led by a church officer (or someone approved by session in that role). An elder must be held accountable. But insufficient oversight is available. In this scenario, I think they might feel OK giving the man their unofficial support, but disallowing any formal connection to the church.

If they say nothing, what right do they have to interfere? This is a bit trickier. They might have justification, to shut it down or not. That would be a matter for adjudication. BUT! I do not think they would have the right to censure the man starting it, just because they didn't give "official" approval. Silence in this case qualifies (to my mind) as tacit approval. But if it was clear that the man attached the church to the study in some way, and fostered the belief that the church was involved, then I think censure would be proper.

 

[JohnV]

Bruce:

It would still be advisable that one does not do this without the Session's knowledge, though, wouldn't it? I mean, if he is going to have a neighbourhood Bible study, he should do it openly. And if the Session is concerned about what he is teaching, if he should be teaching something wrong, he is still under their care, and as such falls under their supervision on this matter. So he should be open about it to anyone who asks, especially the elders, wouldn't you say?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1) I would always recommend godly counsel in any circumstances, especially this kind. Who better than your elders, I say.

2) All such matters should be open, unless one is hiding from godless abusers.

3) If the man does something sinful, then he should be held accountable for it, provided sessional jurisdiction is properly exercised.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That's interesting Bruce. I understand you're trying to guard against excess but I think that, as it works out on the ground, most people need more rather than less oversight by the Session in the things they do "for the Gospel."

This is actually related to the Parachurch discussion in another thread. I've known some women (men too but it seems more women) who actively "disciple" women in their neighborhood. That's the term they use. It's usually a vestige of their Arminian days and they've never quite gotten God-ordained oversight in their blood. Bible studies are usually done in the same vein. It seems that if they are going to be using the Bible Study to spread the Gospel then they should, in some sense, be "sent", should they not? I mean, at least the Session should know who is the one sharing and their qualifications to do so. Otherwise, if he or she is really doing a poor job of it then the spiritual havoc wrought would ultimately reflect back on the session. If it is more than Evangelistic and becomes a place where the man or woman is equipping the Saints then it becomes even more an issue where the session ought to have oversight.

Within the Church, I have seen really poor oversight at otherwise solid Presbyterian Churches. I don't mean to pick on women but it seems as if Elders are loathe to interfere with "women's ministries" sometimes. At one of the Churches we attended the "Woman's Bible Study" was watching Beth Moore videos. Elders' and deacons' wives were leading the study! I really don't think their husbands knew what was going on. I ask my wife what she's learning so that's how I found out. I think there is often an unwarranted assumption that an Elder's wife is automatically as equipped to teach as her husband or has the discernment he does. This is not necessarily so.

I tried to bring a couple of examples up because, honestly, I cannot think of an instance where a Bible Study should not be approved by the Session both inside and outside of the Church body.

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rich, For what it's worth,
I share all the reservations you offer about lone-rangers, and unsupervised groups-run-amok. I think that Sessional oversight is pretty much the way to go. I think that ordinarily a Bible-study ought to be acknowledged or disowned.

But the real thrust of the original question seems to be: What sort of reaction can be expected, or what reaction is proper from a session toward a Bible-study conducted by a member that hasn't been "OKed"? Does the BCO address the issue? Can someone be censured for not getting session approval. I don't think the answer is the same every time.

My thoughts are outlined above, but they are just thoughts. Some sessions could care less about the issue. That's not a good attitude, but its out there. Some will take an unjust approach, they will exceed the limits of their authority. Simple fact is, past a certain point the church can't regulate people's behavior, even their religious behavior. If they could, some of them would be demanding members turn in "devotional time-charts" to monitor their "spiritual progress," and other totalitarian, cult-like moves.

If a fellow or lady is getting several church members (or half the church!) together for a Bible study without the session's OK, that's a likely situation to assert authority over, that is in danger of dividing the true lines of authority. That is a situation that affects the life of the church. But is two church-friends getting together for coffee and the Bible 2 mornings a week a "Bible study"? See how this is a matter of "case"? We don't have, nor do we want, a "rule book" that thick.

If that same person is organizing 8-10 Bible-studies a month at a community college three towns over, with no one (or hardly anyone else) from the guy's church, what is the church going to do, as long as there is no church-identification? Can they, or should they, do anything? I really don't think so.

We don't operate along uni-denominational, parish-lines anymore. There is no ecclesiastical body that will step in and say, "You need to get in line, 'cuz this neighborhood, campus, playground, etc., is our territory."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK, I have it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

If a fellow or lady is getting several church members (or half the church!) together for a Bible study without the session's OK, that's a likely situation to assert authority over, that is in danger of dividing the true lines of authority. That is a situation that affects the life of the church. But is two church-friends getting together for coffee and the Bible 2 mornings a week a "Bible study"? See how this is a matter of "case"? We don't have, nor do we want, a "rule book" that thick.

I appreciate all the comments. They are very helpful.

Just let me get some clarification on what you have said above. If some folks from a congregation are getting together for a Bible study that has not been officially endorsed by the Session, but is otherwise out in the open, why should the Session be concerned, at least to the point of attempting to shut the study down? Let's stipulate there's no false teaching. No one has filed a complaint. In fact the teaching seems to be in accord with the standards of the church. The teacher(s) have all taught Bible studies or Sunday school in that congreation. Everything appears on the up-and-up.

How would the Session assert biblical authority in this situation and not appear heavy-handed or arbitrary?

What valid reasons would a Session have to invoke "prior restraint" on such activities?

How do Christian liberty, the priesthood of believers, and the universal nature of the great commission come into play?

 

[AdamM]

in my opinion, since the study isn't being promoted as an official church Bible study and nobody is giving the impression that it is, I can't understand why it wouldn't fall under the category of Christian liberty?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Within the Church as its members gather to discuss and teach one another about the Bible, is there a physical boundary at which point the Elders cease overseeing the members? How can they possibly be held accountable to Christ for your spiritual well being if their authority stops at the Church doors?

Your example presents a case in which you cannot understand why a session does not want particular teachers starting a bible study for other members of the Church even though they've been given permission to teach in other situations.

Are you questioning the elders' authority to rule that in just this case or in all circumstances where a Bible Study is involved? What if the leader of the Bible study was somebody they forbade to teach in the Church? I'm trying to discern if you just don't understand their ruling in this case or you believe they have no biblical authority to tell you what to do in your home.

Regarding Christian liberty, we have to be careful. While I am skeptical (and very vocal) about people restricting liberty in debatable areas, who may teach and rule in the Church is pretty well spelled out in the Scriptures. Liberty functions within the boundaries that God sets. Even though the reformed acknowledge the priesthood of all believers we do not acknowledge the Eldership of all believers.

When it comes to a Bible Study, of all things, I'm surprised at how many view who leads a study as an indifferent issue. James warns us that not all should aspire to be teachers, yet many take up the task willy nilly. On one level, an elder would be lax in his duties to ignore somebody who should clearly NOT be teaching the Word. In that case, the elder is just letting the person who mishandles it store up wrath for himself. It would rather be like not fencing the table thinking "Well he should know better...."

On the other hand, what about the spiritual damage wrought on members of the study that are within one's own congregation? Is an elder supposed to be indifferent to the effect of error? Do you really believe that when Paul says that Elders must give account for their oversight that he meant to say that Christ won't count in-home Bible studies?

I know many bristle at authority - even Biblical authority is viewed as over-reaching and heavy-handed by some. I have my own issues but I've also learned the peace one has when you make Godly appeal to an Elder and let him rule knowing that obeying won't violate your conscience but also knowing that there is protection in having authority over you. They are there for our spiritual benefit and we are called to submit to them. They are called to protect the flock and equip the Saints. A man simply cannot have real Spiritual authority if it stops at some arbitrary physical boundary.

When in comes to the studying of God's word, and somebody inevitably becomes a teacher among a group of believers, I believe it unwise for the teaching to be outside the Church's oversight and unwise to assume that the Elders have no stake in it.

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[JohnV]

Christian liberty is not at odds with authority. It is when they are put against each other that we have problems. No doubt members are prone to thinking that their liberty is stifled by authority, but it is also the case that some people in authority think their authority is stifled by the liberties of those they have authority over. But since both are Biblical precepts, it must be we who have it wrong when they are at odds with each other rather than being complimentary.

The problem is not wanting to be in Bible studies, but rather in thinking that the elders pose some kind of problem to wholesome Bible study. They aren't. Neither is good Bible study a thing elders take a dim view of. The problem is in unauthorized and possibly schismatic views being propagated under their jurisdiction of authority.

So if Bible study is the aim, then the elders' intrusion should be welcome to everyone, assuming the Bible study is good and the elders are good.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by JohnV

So if Bible study is the aim, then the elders' intrusion should be welcome to everyone, assuming the Bible study is good and the elders are good.

I guess that's the bottom line, things working optimally.

In my mind since every member is explicitly under the authority of the Session, then all their activities fall under their scrutiny. E.g., I'm responsible to disciple my family. I don't need the Session's permission to do so. If I teach error to my family, then I'm subject to the same discipline as if I had been teaching error in a Sunday school class. Likewise, no one is arguing that a "private" Bible study is somehow exempt from sessional oversight with regard to proper doctrine being taught.

I guess I'm wondering about balance. At the one extreme a Session could require all studies be preapproved, and require than an elder be present at every meeting of the study, or that an elder teach every study. At the other end you could have a more laissez faire approach where the Session only gets involved when explicit error crops up. I would think that a Session what is doing its job teaching and training its members would foster confidence and show trust in their abilities. A mature congregation could be treated differently than an immature one, just as we treat our younger children differently than older ones who have demonstrated growth and wisdom.

I realize Christian liberty is not at odds with authority, but neither is authority absolute. Does leading a Bible study fall under the "power of order" reserved to officers? Is leading a Bible study a form of preaching and reserved to teaching elders? Or is it more akin to visiting the sick or comforting the afflicted which all Christians are bound to do in their rolls as priests of God without prior permisison?

Doesn't Christian liberty mean I'm permitted to do anything that is not forbidden in Scripture (teaching falsehood), or is explicitly reserved to the elders (preaching and administering the sacraments)?

"'Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.'"

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by tcalbrecht]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by JohnV
Christian liberty is not at odds with authority. It is when they are put against each other that we have problems. No doubt members are prone to thinking that their liberty is stifled by authority, but it is also the case that some people in authority think their authority is stifled by the liberties of those they have authority over. But since both are Biblical precepts, it must be we who have it wrong when they are at odds with each other rather than being complimentary.

The problem is not wanting to be in Bible studies, but rather in thinking that the elders pose some kind of problem to wholesome Bible study. They aren't. Neither is good Bible study a thing elders take a dim view of. The problem is in unauthorized and possibly schismatic views being propagated under their jurisdiction of authority.

So if Bible study is the aim, then the elders' intrusion should be welcome to everyone, assuming the Bible study is good and the elders are good.

Well said John. Liberty and authority are often matters of prudence, however, so some people have a false sense of what both liberty and authority are which is why they end up seeming to be pitted against each other.

In this observation, Tom, I am not referring to you. I believe your questions are reasonable without seeking to be schismatic.

Doesn't Christian liberty mean I'm permitted to do anything that is not forbidden in Scripture (teaching falsehood), or is explicitly reserved to the elders (preaching and administering the sacraments)?

I'm not sure I agree that a prohibition against teaching falsehood is the "lateral limit" to what the Bible has to say about teachers. Certainly Paul praises God in certain cases when proud men proclaim the name of Christ for their own sinful ambitions. In those cases, however, it is more of the idea that what men intended for evil, God intended for the good.

Honestly, with issues like you're presenting it is difficult to speak in generalities. If Eldership was about looking at a chart with a bunch of "if then" questions then anybody would be qualified. Elders should be ordained who possess a good measure of discernment and prudence.

In the end, what may seem prudent to them may not to you. I would ask them and make Godly appeal to help them make a more wise decision. If their motives are Godly, however, in prohibiting the study then I believe they have the authority to rule on participation in Bible Studies for their members that they don't sanction. I also believe that, like it or not, I would need to submit myself in such a situation where it was merely a difference of opinion regarding the discerned best course of action.

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by SemperFideles]