Like many in our small world, I did not stop my formal education after seminary. In fact, I did another Master’s degree (History) and went through to the Doctorate (History). Last Monday, I finished my final seminar. In the fall, I have a private readings scheduled and then I sit for comprehensive examinations in March with the dissertation to follow .

That sounds so fun, right? A Presbyterian fulfilling that famous Reformed E/INTJ longing for knowledge. Not so fast my friend. I am also a church planter and we started weekly worship this past January.  Let me give you a few things I have learned about full-time ministry, particularly church planting, and pursuing Ph.D studies.

First, it is doable. I am not the most organized person in the world and somehow I have managed. It was easy in the beginning but when we launched small groups and networked this past fall, I found myself working about 60-70 hours a week plus full-time studies! Tip: Go part-time. I read over 100 books last year and probably close to 100 journal articles.

Second, it is a worthy pursuit. Some pastors play golf. Some pastors brew beer. Some pastors stay home. This one likes to spend 3 hours, one night a week, in seminar hashing out ideas, facts, fiction and figures. It also helps when people know you are a Christian pastor. Somehow, you seem more respectable and real than Tim Tebow or Joel Osteen because you can debate materialist vs. idealist interpretations of the Populist Movement, among other things. They also tend to respect your “outmoded” belief in the Christian God because you are a colleague.

Tip: The connections and foothold you gain in academia are worth the effort. Believe it or not, people still respect Presbyterianism, even we theologically conservative PCA types.

Sidenote: I have found that tolerance can work both ways and it can be a good thing.

Third, you will suffer. Like any pursuit, it comes with costs. Since I chose history, I have not been able to stay up on theological stuff as much as I would like. I have also found that I exist in many different worlds. It is strange, and I have had to give up opportunities to travel, rearrange vacation schedules, etc. Plus, since attendance is more strictly enforced than seminary, you just cannot miss a seminar. There are fourteen weeks, fourteen to sixteen books to read, fourteen classes to attend and you can count on an additional 12-20 books for your final paper. Also, I suffered my first B since seminary. It hurt but I had a choice: ministry or giving 100% to coursework. Your congregational needs ALWAYS come first. Also, be prepared for added stress in your marriage. Unlike seminary, this *could* be a world your spouse does not want to enter. That is fine. But also be prepared for the two weeks at the end of the semester where you write your tail off and hide in an office. If you find that your wife becomes a side note to your congregation and studies, then you should wait or never do it. I will say that Jennifer and I have taken on some added pressure in our relationship but I would not have pursued this without her approval.

Tip: This is where you need your wife and close associates/friends to speak into your world. Can you handle the added stress and pressure? If not, stay away!

Sidenote: We are childless, though not by choice. I cannot speak to situations that involve being a parent, though my experience tells me that you would be insane to plant, PhD and parent at the same time. One last thing. I am team planting so that probably saves 10-15 hours a week.

I operate under the assumption that I will complete my dissertation in a couple years. I have found the experience to be fulfilling and a way to believe some of the stress of ministry. I have also discovered that you make connections with folks outside the Church. Sometimes I have found that I am the only Christian some of these folks know or the only one they claim has not been a “jerk” to them.

In closing, if you are near a public university, or other institution which offers more graduate work and it falls within your interest, consider it. You need to pray, plan and evaluate. Do not be afraid to enter. Do not be afraid to exit.

It seems that my little ol’ article about Dr. Gleason’s great big article stirred up a few emotions.  For a few minutes last weekend, the tubes of the interweb that serve the PCA world were positively clogged with the debris from our little dust-up. If your attempt to download Game of Thrones was slowed down by the dust in those tubes, I sincerely apologize.  Really, I mean that.
For the rest of you, I would like to offer an explanation:

Whenever you find yourself disagreeing with another person, you have a number of choices.  The first choice is “Do I even make my disagreement known?” Judging by the personal feedback that I received, many of those that disagreed with  Ron (and presumably also with me) elected to keep that disagreement to themselves. Obviously, these people are much smarter than I. The second choice you have to make, presuming that you have chosen to give voice to your disagreement, is “How do I express my disagreement?”

As I see it, you have three options.   First option: Humor.  Satire, irony and even a bit of gentle kidding fall into this category. Second option:  Anger.  This includes everything in the how-dare-you-challenge-me school of thinking to outright ranting. Third option:  Logic.  By this I mean the kind of point/counterpoint style of dialogue found in high school debate clubs, General Assembly committee and the U.S. Congress.

Let me be clear.  I did disagree with Dr. Gleason in serious ways.  So why did I respond to Dr. Gleason’s article the way that I did?  Why my halting attempt at humor? Simple, really–I prefered to address Dr. Gleason in the manner in which he is accustomed to speak, whilst addressing those with whom he has a disagreement.

This is Ron “Birkenstock” Gleason that we are talking about, correct?  The same Ron Gleason who identifies himself, at General Assembly, as being from America’s “left coast.”  The same guy who, in part one of his article, followed up his comment about illegal immigration with a jibe about “undocumented workers” that Ron Gleason?

Also, since I am not angry with Dr. Gleason (far from it) I thought that humor was the medium best suited for a bit of intramural back-and-forth. It doesn’t really bother me that most of my jokes fell flat.  Really, it doesn’t. I have teenagers in my house, so I am used to people thinking all of my jokes are dumb. It was those commenters (thanks for coming out, by the way) that claimed not to even know  the whole thing was tongue in cheek that puzzled me.   Seriously, I opened with a crack about camping, under a photo of Bob and Doug! Yet some people thought that I was simply responding to a different set of articles?  Honestly?  Well,  It is certainly possible that they  missed the point. Perhaps they also were trying out humor as a means of commenting.

So, for the record.  My article was a tongue-in-cheek response to Dr. Gleason’s three articles.  I was attempting to point out serious shortcomings and areas of genuine disagreement in his article by use of humor. Also for the record, here are my main points of disagreement with Dr. Gleason, bare bones, irony checked at the door:

First, I was troubled by his use of military experience as a qualification for speaking to the church about a matter of ecclesiastical importance.  I do not oppose men with military experience serving the church, far from it.  Many such men serve her well. Our values are skewed when lessons learned at Officer Candidate School become a qualification to speak to the church.  Feel free to disagree, but it bothers me.  And I don’t think I am the only one that would prefer to hear our Elders reflect on lessons learned somewhere that places less emphasis on shooting enemies and places more emphasis on loving them.

Second, I was troubled by Dr. Gleason’s evident Latitudinarianism.   This danger is seen most often by those that would downgrade important issues.  But I saw Dr. Gleason’s as being guilty of it in the opposite direction.  When he put opposition to illegal immigration in a list of serious ills facing the church, next to justification by faith alone, he belittled that great doctrine of our faith, in my honest opinion.  Conflating political opinions with theological values lessens the importance of the theological. From Dr. Gleason’s Second Article:

“What is your view of liturgy? Diversity and tolerance! What is your view of women reading Scripture and praying in the worship service and distributing the elements or the Lord’s Supper? Diversity and tolerance!…What is your view of justification by faith? Diversity and tolerance! What is your view of illegal aliens? (or for the sensitive PCA pastor “undocumented workers”) Diversity and tolerance!“

Third,  I disagreed with him on his conflation of the issue of church union. Dr. Gleason’s article makes great use of an older piece, written by William Brenton Greene, Jr. The problem is,  the issue at hand in the older article is the union between orthodox and unorthodox (i.e. heretical) communions.  This is the true danger of “Broad Churchism”. To conflate union with unbelievers with disagreements within an orthodox church, is to downplay the danger of apostasy.

These three issues are my main points of disagreement with my brother in the Lord. So when I decided to voice my disagreement, I used a writing style that Dr. Gleason himself has employed from time-to-time.   Perhaps I shouldn’t have, but I did.  I was writing an opinion piece, after all.  And those were my opinions.

While we can easily look up the powers of General Assembly(G.A.), it is sometimes difficult to understand all the purposes of the General Assembly. This was the problem I found myself facing a few years ago when I attended my first G.A. I was sent by my church, but what was I there for?

To get a sense of General Assembly you have to realize that, like the local church, it has both formal and informal aspects. Formally, the General Assembly is the gathering of all the Presbyteries and their respective churches, within the PCA. It is open to all Teaching Elders, and delegated Ruling Elders sent by their churches. The primary function is to act as a gathering point of oversight and planning for the denomination. Reports are read, judicial cases are decided, permanent committees are overseen, overtures are voted upon, and many other formal things occur. I have found that G.A. functions in almost the opposite way of most Presbytery meetings. Presbytery is primarily about business, but that business is conducted out of the foundation of existing relationships. Because of the brevity of most Presbytery Meetings, the informal stuff really isn’t that important. After all, how deep can you get waiting in line for the men’s room? On the other hand, it could be argued that at General Assembly there is more going on informally than formally. While at the same time, the formal business of G.A. has less to do with relationships and more to do with official connections. For every formal action that is taken on the floor by a vote, there are ten, twenty, maybe even one hundred informal actions being taken all around the Assembly’s site. New Churches are being planned, pastors are being recruited, books are being outlined, networks are being formed, lectures and debates are being held, and many other formative activities.

The challenge is navigating between the formal and informal side of things, and valuing both. Let me take a few minutes to look at both the formal and informal side of G.A.

From the Formal Side:

Committee of Commissioners

Even before Tuesday evening worship, there is a lot of business that takes place. Participating on a committee of commissioners(CoC) is a great way to serve the denomination. Basically CoC’s are like a ministry assessment. Members of the ministry’s permanent board shares what has been going on in the ministry and then shares the request than they want brought to the Assembly floor. It’s the job of the CoC to approve the records and forward on any such requests. Most of the time it isn’t exciting but it is necessary stuff that needs to get done. I’d suggest that first time commissioners ask their presbytery to put them on a nice and conflict-free committee. Pick MNA, or Ridgehaven, or Inter-Church Relations. Steer clear of Overtures, and Administrative.

Speaking on the Floor

Let me give new commissioners a piece of advice: If it is your first year, just listen. I’m not saying this because I have something against young guys (I’m a young guy). For good or bad, your point will always be better received from someone older. That means if Pastor X is 30 and says the same thing as Pastor Boomer, more people will listen to Pastor Boomer. You also need to trust that God has equipped other leaders of the denomination. There are over 1300 commissioners at each G.A. That means that honestly whatever insight you have is going to be shared by someone else. I also say just listen because when young guys stand up and say dumb things it looks bad for all of us.

Ok for the informal side of things:

The Exhibit Hall & the Schwag

Each year there are dozens of exhibits booths. They are put up by businesses targeted toward churches, as well as nonprofits looking for new ministry connections. At many of these booths, you will be able to score free stuff: T-shirts, music resources, books, CD.

Building Relationships

Especially for a newbies, G.A. is a great place to build up and extend the relationships you have within the church. I went to G.A. for the first time four years ago. I knew a few guys from my presbytery, and that was about it. Four years later I’ve already got plans for dinners and lunches with a dozen different guys from around the country, and I expect that I’ll end up meeting a lot more people.

If you went to one the bigger seminaries, you will bump into lots of folks you knew from school. If you didn’t, things might be a bit more challenging on the networking front.

Coming with an Agenda

When I say, agenda, I’m not talking about some politico posturing. What I mean by agenda is that guys come looking for new jobs, or they come look to fill positions. Be honest but don’t be grubby. A few years ago I met a great guy from Raleigh. He was an elder who came to G.A. because a few months earlier their pastor had taken a call elsewhere, and he thought going to G.A. would be a good way of meeting a potential new pastor. As he met folks he share what he was hoping to do, but he wasn’t trying to make every conversation about finding a pastor.

Should You Bring Your Wife/Family?

General Assembly might be enjoyable, but it is not meant to be a vacation. There are many activities for kids and wives, but in my experience their offerings are pretty culturally specific. One year our first born was two blocks away at a borrowed church, and there was no way to respond if there was a problem. Don’t make my mistake, I took my family just assuming my wife would do her own thing, and it stunk. She wasn’t happy because most of the activities are geared towards your grandmother (I’ve got nothing against southern granny’s but my wife isn’t one). All this meant I ended up feeling bad about what turned out to be me “ditching” my wife all week

Let me wrap up with a few pieces of advice concerning logistics around G.A.

Booking Your Hotel

I’d encourage you to book your hotel early (Registration starts around the new year). When you book early you avoid getting stuck in the overflow accommodations. Depending on where the G.A. is centered, getting from the overflow hotels to the main meeting area can be a pain. I was stuck in the overflow in Orlando, and it turned out we were 3 miles away from the convention center. The bigger problem was that there was no direct transportation between the two locations. We had to bum rides, and even spent $30 on a taxi one time. In downtown locations, being in the main hotel is less of an issue, but it’s better to plan ahead, so you don’t get stuck.

Less hassle –> better attitude –> better experience

Alternatively, each year the hosting presbytery finds free lodging for anyone who requests it. From what I’m told this is often under utilized.

Travel

Along the same lines as booking a hotel, some locations are going to necessitate a car, while others are not. Hop on google maps, and go into streetview to see what kind of area you are dealing with. In Virginia Beach, most of the hotels were within walking distance of great food, but it was a real pain to get to the convention center. In Nashville a car really wasn’t needed at all.

Food

Unless you have a G.I. problem, don’t play it safe, you are in a new local area, so eat like a local (Applebees will be at home waiting for you). In Nashville we found this little italian restaurant, and an amazing taco place. In Virginia Beach it was the seafood. If you know people from the area ask for suggestions. Be adventurous.

I might be one of those oddballs who actually enjoys serving the denomination, but if you go with the right attitude and the right exceptions (no G.A. will solve all our problems, and no G.A. will destroy the PCA), then you will be able to enjoy yourself, serve your church and connect with many great people.

Dr. Gleason is against camping, and Democrats, and Obama, and immigrants. Ok I get that, but what exactly does that have to do with the PCA?

I read pastor Gleason’s recent columns(Part 1, 2, & 3) with interest, and I must admit a certain sense of puzzlement. I know that since I’m way up here in Canada, I am a bit out of the loop, PCA wise. But I must admit I really couldn’t follow my brothers line of argument very well at all. And I am not alone. I have heard from a couple of other Canadian TE’s that they got lost as well, when he veered back and forth from issues facing the church, to issues of American politics.

Now I know that local politics is of great interest to, well locals. But to the rest of us, they are slightly less interesting. To say the least.

But what really has me worried was that Dr. Gleason seems to suggest (implicitly, if not explicitly) that all of us in the PCA must join him in a pup tent of uniformity of views. Not just on theology, but on a wide range of issues from, illegal immigration (to the USA, presumably, but perhaps he meant illegal immigration where ever it rears it ugly head?), to US presidential politics, US domestic politics, Oh, and by the way he also has some advice for us all on uniformity of worship styles.

Thanks. But you will excuse me if I defer your advice to a later time. A lot later.

Perhaps Dr. Gleason forgot that the audience that he was (presumably) writing for included people that take no position on American political issues because they are not Americans? And that it would be a bit presumptive for the 100+ Canadian Elders to offer any advice on who American should choose for their next president? Perhaps he was unaware of the many immigrants that make up a growing part of many PCA congregations? Maybe he didn’t realize that some people in the PCA do not share his politics?

Maybe. But then again, maybe not.

I am a bit afraid that Dr. Gleason has a view of the PCA that is smaller geographically, politically, and yes even theologically than it is currently constituted. I do not agree.

I am glad that the PCA is growing to become a truly North American Church. I am encouraged that it is healthy enough to tolerate people with differing political convictions. And yes I am glad that we do not suffer from a uniformity of style or expression of worship. Because TE Gleason’s form of Semper Fi, Texas GOP, Americanism that makes up (at least part) of his “historically informed” worship, just doesn’t travel that well. And although I am proud to share a General Assembly with brothers that a very different from me, please do not ask me to share it with my congregation along with the Gospel.

I’ve have the privilege of serving with two groups of folks who regularly assess men for ordination and church planting. I’m a member of my presbytery’s Leadership and Development Committee and I serve The Acts 29 Church Planting Network as a church planter assessor. I’ve also been run through examinations myself that include ordination in PCA, transfer into the Blue Ridge Presbytery, church planter assessment with Mission to North America, and church planter assessment with Acts 29. Several other men who write for Vintage 73 share similar experiences both in assessing and being assessed.

So we thought it would be helpful to write a series of short posts on how best to prepare for assessments and examinations. These are meant to cull our cumulative wisdom and hopefully help you avoid some common mistakes that men make in this area.

My first tip has nothing to do with theological study, biblical acumen, or character development. It is much simpler than that.

Edit and Spell Check Your Submission

I know, how unspiritual of me. And yet, I am amazed at how many men aspiring to ministry simply lack the ability to communicate. You realize that is our calling, don’t you? We are communicators. So when you write down assessment material or submit exams make sure your writing is clear, spelled correctly, and succinct.

This also goes a long way with the men who read your material. Most of these men are pastors who have a ton of other things they could be doing. But they’ve felt called to help men advance toward and into ministry. You, as a candidate for ministry or church planting, have a chance to either serve these men or annoy them. There are few things as discouraging as carving out time to review pages and pages of written material only to find it poorly written and unedited.

So when you fill out forms, examinations, or your biographical information make sure you pay attention to the basics of English grammar and spelling. If possible and appropriate give it to someone else to go over and help you edit.

I’m writing this as someone who continually misspells words. I know I’m bad at it. My wife and close friends are my favorite editors. Take my advice. If you know you’re a poor writer, make sure you take extra effort to be sure your submissions to an assessment team are of the highest quality writing you are able to produce. In that way you will show that God has gifted you as a communicator of his gospel and you will serve the men who have given you their time to help you progress in ministry.

The end of public worship is the glory of God. His people should engage in all its several parts with an eye single to His glory. Public worship has as its aim the building of Christ’s Church by the perfecting of the saints and the addition to its membership of such as are being saved – all to the glory of God. Through public worship on the Lord’s day Christians should learn to serve God all the days of the week in their every activity, remembering, whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, to do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).[1]

Is God’s Glory Enough?

Every Reformed man worth his salt will say “Yes, of course.” God’s glory, the all consuming expression of his holiness toward his creation is enough, more than enough, for whatever you’re looking for. But it is not enough to simply say it. SDG[2] is a nice three word abbreviation but if left at an abbreviation it becomes a trite saying, robbing the thing to which it points of its original power an majesty. God’s glory demands fleshing out. It demands description, prayer, endless study, and constant preaching.

The Application to Worship

The same is true when it comes to worship. What is the aim of worship? God’s glory, of course! But how we work out those God glorifying aspects of worship are another matter. For that I’m thankful for the teaching of our BCO quoted above.

It teaches us three things that we should have in mind as we plan our liturgies each Sunday.

1. Worship perfects the saints. Worship is the primary, God appointed means for equipping and perfecting the saints. Sunday Schools are great. Book studies can be incredibly edifying. I know many a man who attributes an accountability group to his significant spiritual group. But the single most edifying thing a Christian can do is attend worship. There, the Bible is laid out plainly. There, the Christian is given a vent for his soul in song. There, the gospel is clearly articulated week after week to assault the weekly bent toward forgetting it. There, the people of God pray and are prayed over. There, the sacraments are administered as an enduring testimony to the sweetness of God’s covenant love in Jesus.
2. Worship adds new members. Yes, God expects professing non-Christians in worship. I know that chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians can make some Presbyterians nervous but nevertheless it teaches that we should work for and expect folks who aren’t Christians to be in Christian worship. And adding to that, Paul teaches us to be sure that our worship is intelligible to our guests.[3] We must remember that biblical church growth is not converting Baptists to Presbyterians. That is simply shuffling the denominational deck. We want to see non-Christians—like we once were—attend our worship, hear the gospel, repent, and believe. Does your liturgy glorify God by seeking to make the components of your worship intelligible to those unfamiliar with Christianity? Do you take time to explain the components of worship? Where appropriate does your bulletin add explanatory notes? Do you preach in a way that someone freshly acquainted with Christianity could understand your main points?
3. Worship prepares us for worship in all of life. One of the more poignant contributions of the Reformed tradition to evangelicalism is the biblical teaching that all of life is lived as worship for God. Let me be specific, all of life, not just church life, is lived as worship for God. And the only way good PCA folks are going to “learn to serve God all the days of the week in their every activity” is if PCA pastors diligently teach them in corporate worship to worship outside of corporate worship. What does it look like for a young unmarried, a high school student, a retiree, a widow, a divorced dad, a young mom, or your ministry staff to worship Jesus when you’re not around them? How does your worship service, your preaching teach them to do this well?

God’s Glory Demands Application

Don’t waste your ministry doing churchy things under the moniker of SDG. Work to the glory of God and have a robust theology of what that means. Help your people to understand what that means. And specifically don’t wast corporate worship on play-acting and pulpiteering when the hard work of glorifying God is in front of you. It is a blessed pastor who has people in his congregation who can say, “I don’t know how I’d get by without corporate worship”.

More and more I am becoming disturbed by certain patterns of communication that some people choose to employ in their defense of their opinions. It seems that whenever a hot button issue comes up in the PCA, a few people seem to think that they are justified in putting on their rhetorical brass knuckles, and going out looking for trouble. Often they take it to the blogs, where—like fun-house mirrors—people can seem to be larger than they truly are. Because of this propensity, many people have started to simple distrust blog content as a way of formulating ideas in the church. This is a shame, since the internet is an amazing way of spreading and interacting with ideas.

But how should we leverage useful tools? What often happens is that as people post opinions online, others disagree and post counterpoints. Sometimes this is done in very healthy ways, such as the Denominational Renewal Conference. At other times this doesn’t happen, and conversations devolve into online slandering.

I’d like to ask three questions that can help us figure out how to debate online.

1. Should we engage privately before starting a street fight?

Believe it or not, there are methods of communicating on the web without publicly posting to a blog. Just because public critique doesn’t fall under Matthew 18, does it mean that we shouldn’t first approach the person with whom we disagree?

The answer to that question seems to depends on one’s desired outcome. If you are looking to tell people that you are upset – blog it! Blog it, and then link to it on facebook, and twitter, with the hope that your writing gets linked and quoted.

If your desired outcome is reconsideration, repentance, or restoration, it seems that other methods might be a better first step. Even when it is a matter of erroneous teaching, wouldn’t it be better for the original author to take back what he or she said rather than to become entrenched in a public debate? Maybe passages such as Galatians 6:1-2, Ephesians 4:2-3, and Philippians 2:1-7, ought to have more weight in our thinking about public criticism.

2. What paradigm should govern our interactions, especially if we are only interact with an author’s printed material?

Let me propose an answer in three parts. First, we must ask ourselves how are we truly connected to our opponents. We must ask are they Christians or aren’t they? (Now I’m not asking us to make a judgement but to say from their profession are they connected to Christ or are they against him?) Nick Batzig recently wrote a very good comparison of how Jesus treats these different groups. He points out that Jesus was much gentler with his own people.

Second, we ought to let real world relationships affect the way we fight. If we share real world connections with someone, shouldn’t we leverage those connected in order to see a peaceful end to a discussion?

Finally, we should be willing to call for clarification before we call for judgement. Before we say you are wrong, we should at least be willing to give people the , “Did you mean to say_____?” question. I can’t even count the number of times that I have been in a pastoral situation where seeking clarity has prevented me from rushing to unnecessary judgements.

3. Does Jesus need you to be his prophet?

I’m simply tired of men saying they are fighting the Lord’s battle with our enemy’s weapons. Too often pastors and other Church leaders forget that the content and character of their online communications need to follow the same Biblical patterns that their real world conversations ought to follow. We lament the loss of civility in our world, but we are the ones tearing it down.  There must be a better way to disagree.

Erroneous teaching is not unimportant, but when any side is  slandered and  demonized the other, we are not doing the work God has called us to. There must be a way to move forward where we can seek out truth and obedience, while at the same time showing patience and generosity. Obviously, as I stated in my first point, this isn’t an issue that is going to be solved by writing or reading a blog post. Yet, It is my hope that the PCA begins to have conversations—private, public, online, and in our denominational meetings—about how we as pastors are going to love and serve one another in the coming years. Those are conversations I’d like to have and be a part of.

Some pastors and elders in PCA churches seem to be adopting a style of worship that is called “contemporary”. The instinct behind this is, I think, good. They are attempting to reach the communities God has called them to serve, in a way that is understandable to those that they are called to reach.

Some other pastors and elders are opposed to this trend, seeing it as a slippage in standards of worship.  The instinct behind this criticism is also good. They are trying to maintain a respect for our confessional tradition, in a day when respect for any tradition seems lacking.

I would like to propose that we try to get beyond the discussion of contemporary/traditional worship.Instead, get to what I consider the more fundamental issue. Both sides of this debate are struggling, honestly in most cases, to grapple with what it means to be a leader in a Reformed, confessional church in the modern world.

I want to make a proposal, first let us change the vocabulary of the debate.

I like to avoid the term contemporary when referring to reformed worship. It is a perfectly good term I just leave it to the baptists & the charismatics.

I prefer the term “accessible”. I admit that it is somewhat arbitrary, but I believe it helps us to understand the root issue better. The real issue under discussion is how accessible is a confessional reformed church to modern North Americans?

Ask yourself these questions to diagnose the accessibility of your congregations worship practices; “Does the typical visitor know what we are doing?” And “does the typical parishioner know why we are doing what we do?”

An extreme example is the historic inaccessibility of the Medieval Catholic worship that the Reformers protested. Forget for a moment the theological issues of the mass, and just think what “going to church” was like at the time. Worship participation by the congregation was nearly nil. For the most part, the people neither knew the “what” or the “why” of their worship service.

No congregational singing, service was in a foreign language, scripture was not read in an understandable language, etc. Along with reforming theology, praxis was also reformed. The congregation sang again. The service was in a locally understood language, as was the Scripture. In other words the worship service was “accessible” to the local people.

The twentieth century trend toward contemporary worship was largely motivated by a desire to present the congregation with a worship service that was accessible to the man & woman in the pew. I am not certain that the effect has lived up to the promise.

When I was a church planter in the early stages of the planting process I was free most Sunday mornings. This is an odd position for a minister to find himself. I have visited many congregations from several denominations. I have seen contemporary worship up close. Many contemporary services that I have visited in the last couple of years are very inaccessible. The singing is done (almost) solely by the pros on stage. Scriptures are rarely read and elements of most traditional services are completely absent. Creeds? Never saw one. Confession of sins? Ditto. Responsive readings? Also absent.

The role of the congregation in worship is being reduced. At its worst, it is little more than singing along with the band the way that people sing along with the radio. Intermittently and not well.

In Reformed churches we do not often fall into those errors. But many of our services often assume a very high level of knowledge of our “culture” to be able to participate. We do not worship in Latin, but we do use a language that is mostly foreign to modern English speakers. We do things that seem odd to many people, and we simply assume that people will “catch on” eventually. Trust me, many don’t.

In our church plant we have a very traditional worship service (call to worship, confession of sins, confession of faith, psalms & hymns, longish prayers & readings of scripture, etc) But I *try* to be as “accessible” as possible. I always assume that someone there is in a Reformed church for the first time. So I ask myself, “do they know what we are doing?”

An example is that instead of saying “Let us stand for the call to worship”, (or worse, just standing and doing it) I say (something like) “For thousands of years whenever the people of God gathered to worship him they began the service by listening to a brief sentence or two from the scriptures. These are the very words of our God, and He is inviting us into his presence, so hear the voice of God inviting you in these words…”

It takes a second or two longer & may add 5 (?) minutes to the overall service. But visitors often comment that they were glad that the could “follow” the service.

My goal is not to try to enforce a uniformity of practice within the PCA. My goal is not even to criticise the form of Worship that local elders have determined best reflect our standards to a local congregation.

My goal is to encourage everyone one of us to reconsider if our worship practices are “accessible”. Do members know “Why” we do what we do? And can a visitor figure out “what” is going on? When we can answer both of those questions in the affirmative, then we can get back to debating everything else.

At their 2012 winter meeting, the Northern California Presbytery received a request to conduct a study on a topic that, so far ,has proven too hot to handle–woman in the diaconate. This request came from Pastor Sam Wheatley of New Song Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City, UT. Following this Presbytery meeting Wheatley’s paper was put up online and has started to garner responses from a number of other PCA blogs.

As this paper, and its author, is sure to gather more and more attention in the coming months, the contributors of Vintage 73 wanted to interact with the topic. Our hope was to seek to understand Pastor Wheatley’s motivations and intentions behind his this. Rather than taking wild guesses, or trying to search old websites for comments Rev. Wheatley might have made, we decided to ask him directly and we are now, with his permission, publishing his response to our questions.

V73: What was your motivation for bring this request at this time? Why not two years ago?

Wheatley: Two years ago our presbytery did bring this up at a presbytery level.  We brought the issue of the diaconate by surveying and describing the various ways that sessions within the Northern California presbytery were organizing their diaconates.  We presented to the presbytery 6 ways that local sessions had interpreted the BCO on the issue of organizing the diaconate with respect to the inclusion of women.  We adopted a resolution that approved all 6 as valid forms for sessions to employ.  For each position we gave a BCO rationale that had been used to arrive at that construction.  This resolution was complained about and resulted in an SJC case.  The SJC ruled that our presbytery did not have the right to make such a resolution.

The reason I and others wanted to bring this up before presbytery was that for many years there has existed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding this issue.  We desired to bring the issue up in order to have a more thorough and biblical discussion of the diaconate and the role of women in the diaconate. Before doing something overtly political like overturring to change the BCO, I’m seeking to address a tough issue in a biblically faithful and winsome way.  One of the things I’ve always appreciated about the Reformed tradition is the ability to work through the biblical material on complex issues and draw conclusions that keep us in line with orthodox theology and prophetically relevant to our contemporary setting.

V73: How important do you think woman in the diaconate is to the state of the PCA today?

Wheatley: I think this is an important issue mainly because it is asking the question of whether we can do theology — can we think through complex issues with biblical depth on issues facing us. Can we do theology together? If I’m wrong about the theology I need to repent and change.

I think the issue of women and their role and vital participation in the church is something we need to grapple with as a denomination so that we speak to our congregations and the larger culture in gospel-rich ways.

V73: What do you say to the objection that women in the diaconate is a settled issue?

Wheatley: That that is a matter of perspective.  As I try to show in my paper the church has been trying to figure out ways to honor and include women in it’s diaconal outreach in various ways for a long period of time.  I think most people who argue that line are afraid of a slippery slope — that if we allow women into the diaconate we will shortly be ordaining women to serve as elders or pastors.  They have some hesitation because of the history of liberalism in the 20th century that had agendas that were contrary to biblical understanding.  While I appreciate that conservative hesitation — it should not keep us from asking questions and exploring solutions that are in line with the bible and our Reformed heritage.  That other conservative, biblically sound, Reformed denominations like the ARP’s have women in their diaconates should help us to see that this is not a liberal/conservative issue per say.

V73: Do you think that part of the rationale behind this letter lies in the situation you are in as a church planter? or in Salt Lake?

Wheatley: The missional component of this issue is how we view and treat women in our congregation and culture.  I live in a culture on one side that dismisses women and says that their salvation is dependent upon them acquiring a man in their life to make spiritual vows on their behalf.  On the other hand I live in a very secular city that says that gender plays no significant role in an understanding of who we are as humans.  The gospel is the announcement of the reign of God in Christ.  He has rescued and redeemed a people from their sin and is sending us into our world as HIs agents of grace.  To a person coming from Mormonism, it is crucial that they see men and women are equal before God and need no intermediary but Christ to enter into the Kingdom of God.

That in practice is conveyed by the congregation as men and women being represented in our worship service and our mission.  Someone coming to New Song would simply see all sorts of people involved in the service and ministry of the church.  On the other hand we also because of the gospel challenge the secular individualism that is a presupposition. That the pastors and elders of New Song are men brings up the question pretty quickly about church and hierarchy. When we talk about Christian leadership flowing from an understanding of being a servant — that Christ leads by serving and calling His church into an initiative of love and care not domination. And that Christian men are not to remain passive, but to lead in love in their homes, workplaces and church, this brings up a challenge to the radical individualism of our age.  We are a community together, not just an assembly of individuals.

V73: In your paper you list some different resolutions from other denominations, are there any which you hope the PCA would adopt?

Wheatley: Yes, I wish we would simply say that the office of deacon is open to qualified men and women. I’d say it should be up to the session.

V73: What do you say to the thinking, “you can have women deacons in other denominations, just go there.” ?

Wheatley: That’s a way of stiff-arming the argument without engaging it.  I am a PCA minister, I came to Christ through the ministry of a PCA church, my mentors in ministry are by and large in the PCA — this is as much my home as theirs.  What I’ve loved about the PCA is the desire to be biblical in it’s theology and practice.  This issue of deacons, to me, has a deeply biblical rationale that according to our tradition, we must take seriously.  If the bible calls us to do or allow something we would be wrong to not obey.

V73: How have you interacted with pastors that disagree with you on this issues?

Wheatley: Yes, our presbytery has had a two year dialogue on this where many do not share my view.  I’ve also read other’s objections.  I’m not saying that I have the issue totally solved, it is a multi-dimensional issue that needs the input of people with much more ability and insight than I possess.

V73: Do you think woman deacons are an issues that has been tightened up in recent years?

Wheatley: What has tightened up is the attitude toward this issue.  In part I think it is part of an agenda by some to tighten the denomination into a more Reformed Fundamentalist rather than a Reformed Evangelical denomination.

V73: Do you see a difference biblically between a deaconess and a deacon?

Wheatley: I can see how you might have a special office of deaconess, but the 1 Tim 3 passage where the women are sandwiched between instructions for male deacons makes me think it was by and large just one office.

V73: What do you say to your fellow elder who is unconvinced of the exegesis and believes that the diaconate is reserved only for men?

Wheatley: That, I hope, this is an issue where brothers can disagree and still work together; that it belongs not in a top tier of theological essentials, but a second or tertiary tier of things that we allow latitude among as a denomination.

V73: To try and line up what New Song does to the BCO and specifically 9-7, do you have ordained deacons and unordained assistants (which you also call deacons)? Or do you have only unordained male and female assistants which you call deacons?

Wheatley: We have unordained men and women who we refer to as deacons.

V73: If the latter, What do you say to the objection that according to our current standards you are withholding ordination from men who deserve to be set aside in that way? i.e. that in the pursuit to honor women we dishonor the men

Wheatley: There is a problem with what we mean by ordination.  Sometimes we talk about ordination as one thing, but the qualifications and routes to ordination are very different.  The qualifications for ordination as a pastor are very different from those of deacon.  And we clearly mean something different about the ordination to elder than to deacon when we say pointedly that the diaconate is not an office of rule, but sympathy and service.  The outcome from my paper was that the Northern California Presbytery put together a study committee to answer how the issue of ordination touches on this issue of the diaconate.

V73: So do you see the office of deacon primarily as a catch-all assistant to the elders or as a leader of mercy and service?

Wheatley: Diaconate ministry is to lead in mercy/service and outreach/mission. The diaconate functions under the authority of the session, but it’s calling is distinct.

V73: In the past the denomination seem split? Why might things be different this time around?

Wheatley: The church isn’t primarily a court, it’s a counsel.  If we run the local church like a counsel, why don’t we run the denomination along the same lines?  Would any reasonable pastor allow this kind of division on the session? Complex issues can’t be solved by a close vote in either direction.  The counsel of the church is that we need to take time, pray, read and re-read scripture, think  and build friendships among those who differ, not politic or power play.  This is what a split session would do; this is what we need to do as a denomination.

V73:How do you think you think this paper and the larger issue might challenge the peace of the church?  do you think this issue is able to be advantageous to the peace of the church?

Wheatley: Peace is not pandering, but conflict done with gospel grace.  What we need is not hegemony to create peace in the PCA, but an ethos of love to pervade all our dialogue and discussions.  Love always wins the day, because it is patient, long-suffering and truth-seeking.

V73: What do you think of the argument that a denomination who doesn’t not allow women deacons demeans the value of women in the church?

Wheatley: The diaconate is not the only way to value women.  There are many ways to do that, but having women involved in visible roles in the church speaks volumes about the church’s view of women and how it values and honors their contribution.  I think what needs to be highlighted in the diaconate is the gifting by the Spirit for ministry not the gender of the one so gifted.

V73: How can others be praying for your presbytery and New Song during this situation?

Wheatley: I pray that through this we all could learn how to love one another better and do theology without acrimony and party faction.

We are working on a new commenting system. We’ve realized that we often have a lot of comments on facebook but not as many on the site itself. We are taking a shot as using facebook comments in order to bring the two together.

We are going to keep up all of our old comments, though you’ll notice they look a bit different, since we are not running disqus anymore.