This is a short four-part series examining some of the things the Presbyterian Church in America, could, and I would say should, learn from Soma Communities, a group of churches in the Northwest.

Part One – What the PCA Could from Soma about Discipleship

Part Two: Do We Really Have Good Theology?

I was expecting to go to Soma and find patterns and systems, lacking theology. I figured that I, the PCA guy, would have to fill in the theological and scriptural support for their non-theological pragmatism. Instead, the Lord humbled me. Only one of the seven days was spent talking about systems, and that was at the end of a week of theology! Even then, these systems were shaped by a deeply thoughtful theological framework. There folks are not theological lightweights. Soma is teaching Biblical theology to their toddlers!. The difference is that Soma’s theology is infused into the life of their church, in a much different way than much of the PCA is used to.

The most humbling example came as we began talking about the work of the Spirit in the church. Jeff Vanderstelt, warned everyone that emphasizing John 20:21 without also focusing on 20:22 would be missing a major theological component of ministry life.  I realized he was right.  I had been leading out of my own strength and that I was trying to power our ministry. It felt as if I were dying. At the same time, I was constantly frustrated that our church wasn’t being energized for mission by my strength. It was wonderful to see that just as the father has sent the Son, the Son has sent us; and that both the Son’s ministry and our ministry is accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I have to confess I don’t rely on the Spirit, and I think I’m right in saying that many leaders in the PCA are like me in that regard. Often we tend to ignore the Holy Spirit. After all, when you ignore someone, you speak and act as if they are not present. While I might know the Spirit is with us, I have often acted and spoken as if he were not in my church. At the very least, he is unnecessary for most of what we do.

A charge leveled against the Reformed Church, by more liberal groups, is that our ortho-praxy (good living) is missing. Often the Reformed response is to say, that our orthodoxy (good belief) is the necessary source of our right living. If that is our logic, what happens if we aren’t living well? Does that mean that we actually don’t have good theology? ( Please note, Im not trying to argue that those with good living by default have good doctrine.) It seems that it is one of two answers and neither are encouraging. Either we don’t know, or we don’t care…

Question 1: Do we understand Discipleship?

At the start let me say, Soma is not some perfect model to be xerox’d. But it is fair to mirror Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians: that we can follow the example of Godly brothers and sisters in as much as they follow the example of Christ. Rather than bombard everyone with a very long article, it seems best to ask three questions in three posts, and conclude with a final assessment of what we might learn.

For most leaders in the PCA what is discipleship? Is it the process by which we groom prospective elder candidates? Is it moving younger Arminian Christians into the Reformed faith?

As far as I can tell it is not something that we have a good grasp of within the PCA Community. I went to a Reformed Seminary. I’ve been connected to many Reformed Churches, but I’ve never seen the type of discipleship which I saw at work at Soma. There, I saw men and women walking in faith, bringing the gospel into the lives of their friends and neighbors. Not flawlessly, but faithfully. Faithfully calling people to deeper discipleship, and yet standing with them as the grow in grace.

I’ve seen this happen from time to time, but they have been isolated situations. I’ve never interacted with a church, other than Soma, where so many people were being discipled at the same time. Sure, I’ve seen it within the leadership and more mature Christians in some churches, but never among the whole congregation. The amazing part was that Soma is not simply a group of well fed people. Rather, it is a group of followers putting into practice the idea that disciples ought to be making disciples of their own.

Why have we miss this so often in the PCA? In Jesus’s call to make disciples; isn’t there a built-in command that all of those disciples will be reproducing? Now sure some people will just not be very good disciples, but that ought to be the exception. If we can’t look at our churches and see many disciple-making-disciples, how can we really say we are disciplining?

A week and a half ago, around 50 pastors and elders in the PCA met in Atlanta. Atlanta is our denominational headquarters, and Presbyterians love meetings. At first this doesn’t seem like it should be news worthy. Then byFaith put out a short article explaining what happened at the meeting:

The meeting had two specific goals: “To discuss charitably and forthrightly the causes for conflicts in the PCA that hamper our ministry and unity.” And to discuss solutions to those conflicts. The meeting was conducted under Chatham House Rules, meaning that “participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant may be revealed.”

All of a sudden a lot of people were confused and thought it was odd to have a meeting that was off the record. People started writing about the meeting. Saying things like:

“Secret meetings which invite a selected few will not bring unity to the PCA.”

“Denomination-wide yet unannounced and discriminate meetings of this nature are contrary to the intentional character of presbyterian government. This kind of thing should be discussed in the prescribed venues of presbyteries and General Assembly.”

“Give them a royal imprimatur joined with a British accent and the PCA’s leaders are off to the races. Never mind that it’s lipstick on a pig, the ecclesiastical equivalent of “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” They’re the “Chatham House Rules” after all and, if they’re good enough for royalty, they’re more-than-sufficient to assuage the guilty consciences of bounderish Presbyterians.”

“‘Denominational leaders’? What was this, a conclave of bishops in the PCA?”

“The rest of us out here among the Great Unwashed get to know what was said (according to official denominational reporting, of course) but not who said it.”

Many people are really upset about this meeting, and when I first heard about it so was I, but I have to confess the real reason that made me mad wasn’t because there was such a meeting or because it was private. I must admit my reasons for being angry at this meeting are far less mature, and I think there are others in the PCA that share my reasoning.

I was angry about this meeting because I wasn’t invited. I want to be considered influential, and a leader in our denomination. I want to go to a meeting and know that other people see me as important. I wanted to go to that meeting so that at some point I could stand up and say something so thoughtfully orthodox, and at the same time so pastoral that men like Roy Taylor would swoon. The reason I’m angry is because I want to be considered part of the inner circle (even if it’s a circle that only exists in my head).

Honestly a lot of my frustration with this meeting makes me feel like I’m back in High school. This kind of thing makes me want to camp out in my mom’s backyard and read S. E. Hinton with the aim of developing a persecution complex. Yet, we aren’t in High school, and I wonder how many of us “Outsiders” would be as angry if we had been invited. Even more to the point, my anger about this meeting shows me how easy it is to seek the approval of men over that of God. There might be valid reasons for being upset about what happened at this meeting, but that is not why I’m angry, and I don’t think that I’m alone in having this problem.

Side note – Vintage 73 has been quiet during the holidays, but as we move toward General Assembly, I think we will begin to see more and more activity.

Just imagine how different the world would be if you could never send a letter or write a note or email someone. Reading is a gift that most of us don’t appreciate. Most people aren’t even aware of how much they read on a daily basis. We read and write all the time, just think about how many people have moved from calling to texting as the quickest mode of communication. We  also have an unheard of level of access to literature. Christians have the opportunity to have not one, but many Bibles in their home–-something unheard of even 100 years ago.

In August of 2009, WIRED published an article examining the shift in literacy in our technological age, but the surprising conclusion was that people are reading and writing more than ever.

Stanford Professor, Andrea Lunsford  is quoted in the article as saying,“I think we’re in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since Greek civilization”. Her argument is that technology isn’t killing our ability to write, instead It’s reviving literacy—and pushing it in bold new directions. Well that was over two years ago, and since then there have been major leaps foreword in this new literacy.

What Lunsford speculated about ,seems to be coming to fruition. Thanks to electronic devices, reading might be entering a new renaissance. Andrew Rashbass, CEO of The Economist Group, Recently published a presentation, outlining the rise in readership that their periodical has received thanks to its electronic counterparts on devices like the iPad. In this same presentation, he also shared a number of fascinating insights about the publishing industry. He points to the fact that 65% of tablet owners surveyed by Pew have said they have increased their reading thanks to digital readers. Also according to Pew, Tablet owners are three times as likely to read an in-depth article as they are to watch a news video. Rashbass also points out that 71% of Tablet readers preferred reading, or hearing to information rather than seeing photos, or videos.

This isn’t just the findings of one magazine. Rashbass’s finding comes from numerous market surveys looking at tablets, e-readrs, and even smart phone reading usage. The publishing world is being radically reshaped by these digital devices.

For Christians, this new literacy is changing the way we read the Bible. Of course, some people will lament this shift and worry about what will happen, but we should remember that Christianity has actually undergone many similar shifts in the pasts. Early Christians began to use codexes (the ancient ancestor of today’s books) instead of big and clumsy scrolls. When that happened, it made it easier for books, written in one area, to be transported to another area. It also meant that someone was able to read a middle section of the text without having to unravel the whole things, and potentially damage the expensive object. Most early Christians never even handled a bible.  The way that they “read” the Bible was to hear it read aloud.

When Gutenberg first introduced movable type to the western world, it ushered in another major shift in the way Christians interacted with God’s word. This printing revolution meant that Bibles could be produced at lower cost, which meant that owning a copy because feasible for a much larger section of society. Families could actually have their own copy of the Bible which they could be read at home. This meant that individuals, who could read, could study the Bible for themselves.

Today we are at the cusp of another great shift; digital reading is becoming untethered. E-readers and Tablets (like the iPad the Kindle Fire, and the myriad of e-ink readers on the market) are radically changing the way that we read. Rashbass suggests that we are moving what he calls a “Lean-back 2.0″ style of reading. Where books created freedom from large and bulky scrolls, e-readers are creating the same freedom to interact with vast amounts of online material. Freed from the confines of hovering over a computer screen.

This means that the way that we read the Bible, and all christian writing, is not going to change…it has already changed.

While I know some people will freak out–let me remind everyone: it’s still the word of God, if it’s read from animal skin, papyrus, paper or a digital display. The tech that is involved in reading has changed before and it’s changing now. Two years ago when I first wrote about this subject very few people had e-readers, today, many churches are seeing an iPad or Kindle as obvious tool for pastoral ministry.

Soon, we will discover that new technologies will allow Christians to study the Bible in ways that no one has ever done before. The important part for people who consider themselves disciples of Christ, is that when available you take these new opportunities to read the Word.

Beyond the Bible, Christian books could do very well in this new electronic market. While there might not be a major financial motivation for switching from six-dollar paperbacks to six-dollar digital books, the move from $30 hardcovers to $15 dollar digital versions means more books for less money. Just imagine.

That’s just for new books, thing about public domain works. If you are reading anything over one hundred years old, chances are you could have found that work for free in some digital form. While some companies are going to be major losers in this market, it’s great to think that more people will be able to access thousands of Christians classics for free! Forget spending $19 dollars for Pilgrim’s Progress, or Augustine’s Confession, at Barnes and Noble. There are also books out of print which no one can justify reprinting simply for cost, these books end simply disappearing from the collective Christian intellect. Even more exciting is the idea that Christians can search and share writing in totally new ways.

With access to free books found in the Ethereal Library, Google Books, as well as .99 cent books on Amazon, I’m considering make 2012 the year of old books for my personal and pastoral reading.

All of this means we are entering a new stage of Christian communication, one that has major differences between

Some Numbers to Consider:

Around 17% (50+ Million) of American Adults either have an e-reader or a tablet computer.

76% (38+ Million) of tablet user say they either prefer reading on a tablet or find it the same experience to reading a traditional book.

According to pew around 5 million people read on their tablets daily! That’s almost fives times greater than the total make up of the PCA.

According to a Conde Nast survey (publisher of Wired, GQ, Vanity Fair, etc.) Print readers spend about 45 minute with each issue, vs 160 minutes per issue on the ipad/iphone version.

LifeChurch’s Bible App (For Smart Phones and Tablets) has been installed over 34 Million times.

On any given Minute of the day 6 thousand chapters of the Bible are being read on the Aforementioned Bible App.

Some Questions to Ask Ourselves:

What can the Church do to deliver more teaching to its members?

The publishing world is already changing but, will Christian Publishing be behind the curve?

If reading isn’t dying, how does the church stay in the thought game with major corporations production content 24/7?

Could we see a revival of short form work being produced by the church for free or at an extremely low cost?

While their solution isn’t being talked about much here, do you think they have the right diagnosis? It seems like this video shares the thinking that the PCA expressed about education in the Strategic Plan? What do you think?

Like many cities in Canada, our city has a thriving farmers’ market.  In fact, we have more than one.  For many years, I was a vendor at our Saturday morning market.  I got up early and set up my booth.  I enjoyed the early morning camaraderie that exists between vendors and customers.  I greeted my fellow vendors and customers alike as old friends.  People came to our booths, not just for the fresh produce and local products, but for the community.

Our city also has big box stores.  Both serve a function in our city and our economy.  We would all be the poorer if we lost either one.  City residents make choices every week about which place they will shop.  And although I am a dedicated market shopper, I also buy some items at the big box store.  If you are like me you shop at the box store because you “need” to and not because you love the experience.  I love shopping at my local farmers’ market!

The market itself has a personality.  It is probably the most diverse, and at the same time, most local place in our city.  Farmers sell produce that is grown on land their father farmed. Just a few feet away, a new Canadian would be introducing the cuisine of their home country to new fans.  Dutch bakers, German butchers, Lebanese vendors, Indian samosas, French pastries, all jostle with each other in a friendly competition.

People who, outside of the market, might never meet each other became friends here.  We give each other gifts when new babies are born, sing Happy Birthday to anyone “lucky“ enough to be born on a Saturday and join in the celebration of each others’ success, just as we share in the sorrows.

The vendor committee doesn’t just set policy and govern the business, but it also organizes social events so that we can join each other “after market”.  And it was at one of those potluck/business meetings that the first seed of our church was planted.

As vendors took turns addressing issues of concern, one person rose to speak about something other than the usual topics of parking, hours of operation and booth size.

This woman said that the market was important to her not only because of the income that she earned but because of the role that it played in her life.  She said “This market is my church!”  She explained it this way “It is the place that I go every week and I know people care about me.”

Her statement floored me.  As a Christian and an active member of my local congregation, I had taken for granted the sense of belonging and community that flow from that.  I knew that if I lost my job, people would pray for me.  If my kids were sick someone would stop by with a casserole to make our day a bit easier.  If I needed a babysitter someone would usually be available.

It had never occurred to me that for many people these kinds of relationships and this degree of community just doesn’t exist.

A few years later when we started the Bible study that grew into our church plant, I had an idea.  I wanted us to meet in the Farmers’ Market.

For a church plant, the meeting space says a lot about the group and about the philosophy of ministry. What does the farmers’ market say about us?

First, we meet downtown.  We are planting a church in our city.  That is where we should meet and worship.  Suburbs might be nicer, and industrial areas may have cheaper rent, but downtown is the heart of any city.  We want to capture the heart of our city with the gospel.

Second, we wanted a public meeting space.  When Jesus and the apostles entered a new city, they began their ministry in a public space.  Our mission is to make Jesus known in our city. We began by meeting in the most public space that we can find.

Third, we wanted a missional meeting space.  Jesus used culturally and socially appropriate places to teach his revolutionary message.   He went places that people naturally went as part of their everyday life. He preached to them an otherworldly message of repentance and faith.

Finally, we wanted an organic meeting space, a meeting place that was a natural extension of how people led their lives, not an artificial add-on to an already busy week, but a place to worship God that fit with where we already lived our lives.  Early Christians met in homes, in storerooms, and in other spaces.  These places were where they lived their lives and earned their living. On Sunday, that was where they worshiped God.

Meeting in a farmers’ market has given our church a distinctive personality.  It reflects the nature of the farmers’ market itself.  Our congregation is diverse.  Dutch, Korean, Mandarin, and French are some of the languages that our members speak at home.  More than half of us were not born in our city, and like the crowd that shops at the market on Saturday, those that worship on Sunday are younger than the average Canadian church member.

Most weeks, the fellowship time is longer than the service time.  Now that I think of it, that’s how people shop at the market.

Our regular attenders work and shop at the market on Saturday.  Although I am no longer a vendor , I am at the market every week.  I visit members, and network with newcomers to our community.  I try to build new relationships and maintain old ones.  I pray with people, and share the gospel.  And I get a bit of real- world apologetics done while talking to some adherent of the many religious represented.  I am only half joking when I tell people that this market is my parish.

Ever since seminary I’ve heard whispers and murmurs on one topic, but never open discussion. On most theological subjects in the Reformed Community there is  plainly agreement or disagreement, yet when it comes to the Lord’s Supper this doesn’t seem to be true. Sure we learned about the three views in the Reformation: Consubstantiation, the Memorial View, and Calvin’s view. While we learned that the Lutherans hold to consubstantiation, things got very muddy, after that. This confusion seemed to come in part because there is disagreement about what Calvin and Zwingli (the proposed herald of the memorial view) actually believed on the issue, and because there is also disagreement with these two views but often there is not really any alternative position put forth.
Let me ask the church leaders reading this post a few questions (these aren’t the three big questions, I’ll get to those in a minute.) First, during your ordination exam were you ever asked, “what happens in the Lord’s supper?” Second, if such as question was asked do you think there would be consensus? Finally, would you feel comfortable giving a 30 minute presentation explain your view of the Supper to members of your Presbytery? To members of Reformed churches: has your pastor ever taught a class on the subject? (Not just a few comments in a larger topic but a whole class.)
For some reason a theology of the Lord’s Supper has been neglected, but before taking the time to write on the subject, I believe the Reformed community needs to answer three questions about the Supper, in order to define our objectives and ground rules.

Is the Lord’s Supper a topic worth Discussing?

As a church planter, I was forced into the situation of helping to establish a pattern of practices concerning the Lord’s Supper, and so I had to ask these question but many leaders are not in this situation, and seem less concerned with the topic.

Across ecumenical lines, topics like gender roles and ecclesiology  are often publicly discussed. Even Baptism, an issue which divide groups like The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel, seems to be worthy of some public discourse.  Yet, the theology of the Supper seems almost entirely untouched.

Within the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, there are numerous ongoing debates. We are talking about Creation issues, covenantal structures, as well as issues of church practice, gender roles, and many others topic,  but it seems that we aren’t that interested in coming to a greater consensus on our views of the Supper. This leads me to ask: Is the Lord’s Supper a topic that is worthy of more Discussion?

Is there Disagreement?

In the PCA some leaders seem to assume that there is a general consensus, on the matter.  At the same time, others seems to be cautiously aware of strong disagreement held on the issue. The funny part is that it seems like neither side is very interested in give much attention to the topic.  So which is it? Do we have agreement and therefore don’t need to discuss the matter? or do we have such strongly disagreement that even openly talking about it might result in a major crisis in the Reformed church?

What Happens if we find there is strong Disagreement?

Of course this question has more than one answer depending on the context. Along ecumenical lines, I would assume that if we found that there was strong disagreement on the Supper that it might fall into what some call “open handed” issues, things which might practically divide us in terms of local ministries (we have Baptists and Presbyterians), but don’t make us adversaries.

The answer within the Presbyterian tradition seems to be far more vague. Is the issue important enough for overtures, and even censure if necessary? Should we be asking ministerial candidates their take on the Nevin and Hodge debate? Should we expect them to explain their view of what happens at The Supper?
Maybe the reason we aren’t talking about the Supper more is because we are worried about the answer to this question. With jumping into this example, if some people think that one’s view on women serving in the deaconate is important enough for you to be ineligible for ordination in the PCA, would a similar formula follow after a discussion of communion?

I want to hear from you! How would you answer these questions?

Many of us in ministry are captive to celebrity. We buy the latest books by “successful” pastors and Christian leaders. We pay money to attend conferences and training seminars where we hear sermons we could never preach, listen to music performed at a level we could never attain, and learn techniques our gifts and abilities are unable to implement. That is not to say we cannot learn or improve, but it is to that most of us are, well, ordinary.

The average church in the US has around 100 attending weekly.If you pass 250 that puts you in the top 10% in the nation! If you plant in the PCA, it takes around 100 or so, depending upon geographic context, to generate enough income for you to end the fundraising  letters and start the particularization paperwork. Sometimes it seems to be about the numbers.

Yet, to what are we called? Do we commit to numbers, demographics, church metrics and influence or do we commit to faithfulness? I think you know the answer.  And in that answer, we can evaluate whether or not Ansgar was a failure or success.

I’m not the oldest kid on the block but I’m sadly realizing I’m not the youngest either at age 48.  My ministry experience to date has been somewhat varied. Prior to seminary I was a campus intern with RUF followed by eight years as a campus minister once my M.Div from RTS was in hand.  Following that I served as an Assistant Pastor at a multi-staff church and then became a church planter where I continue as the organizing pastor.

I’ve made and seen a number of mistakes in the ministry in the almost 20 years since I was ordained and I’d like to ponder them a moment.  I won’t distinguish which are the mistakes I’ve made and which are the ones I’ve observed.  Is that due to pride?  That’s entirely possible.Ministry mistakes I’ve made and seen:

1) Buying into the greener pastures myth
2) Going for the silver bullet
3) Wishing you were someone else

1.  Buying into the greener pastures myth- by this I mean I’ve seen guys jump ship from a pastorate or ministry position for which they are well suited and a seemingly good fit for something that looks bigger and shinier.  What often happens is that the new position implodes.  If God has you in a good place of ministry that fits well with your gifts, talents, and personality you need to think loooooong and hard before leaving. Of course, there are legitimate reasons to pursue other callings (save that for another blog post) but just to get a bigger steeple is a poor reason- and can often not end well.  You may be jumping to a situation that exceeds your gift mix. We’re not all called and gifted to pastor a Briarwood or be the next featured speaker at T4G.

2.  Going for the silver bullet- this is the ministry mistake of thinking the latest and greatest will solve all of your problems.  A few years ago we were all told that using the “40 Days of Purpose” would increase attendance and giving!   Great!  How do I order?  Where do I sign? Churches of all stripes were using it.  Sadly, silver bullets only work on werewolves (or so I’m told).  Now the silver bullet may be the latest and greatest in technological advancement.  “Hey, if we get a Facebook page, start a Twitter account, and use some video that will turn Andy Stanley green with envy, we’ll turn this thing around!”  It’s not that we can’t glean some insights from others, but if you think you’ve found the mystery method that will solve all of your ministry’s problems that doesn’t involve theological reflection, prayer, and repentance, my advice is to take your shiny ammo back to where you got it.  Here’s an idea: What about starting with a renewed commitment to the primary tools God put in the church’s toolbox such as the ministry of the Word, prayer, sacraments, worship, and fellowship?  Just a thought.

3.  Wishing you were someone else- This is one of those pastoral mistakes that happens within.  It occurs when you’re discouraged and begin to think “If so-and-so were here, this thing would have taken off by now and we’d be seeing things happen.”  I realize this can spring from faulty views of what “success” in ministry really is.  Aside from that, wishing you were someone else can sometimes lead to copying preaching styles, voice intonations, and mannerisms at its worst.  For most it can be debilitating as it brings waves of self-pity and doubt.  This is where your theology needs to kick in.  If God wanted “so-and-so” there, He would have put him there.  For today at least, God has you there and that makes you the best fit for the situation.  This doesn’t mean you’re there for the long haul necessarily but is a recognition of God’s providence in the here and now.

Of the talk of suspicion and eyebrow-raising between Christians, there will likely be no end… but here’s an attempt to advance the conversation.

Anyone who knows me well — or who takes a more-than-cursory glance at my Facebook or Twitter accounts — knows that I can be a bit of a cynic. Now, before we go further, let’s talk a bit about cynicism. Defined simply (and incompletely), cynicism is a mindset that tends to believe the worst about people, events, or circumstances.

Having said that, I’ve noticed the presence of what I can’t help but think is a certain kind of cynicism creeping into the reformed evangelical world. I’ve seen this quite clearly in a few spots: in John MacArthur’s recent predictions of the end of the “reformed revival”, in Georgia pastor Terry Johnson’s piece about what he sees as “liturgical anarchy” in the PCA, and in suspicion against younger, urban PCA churches. This is the kind of cynicism that I’ve previously called “discernment gone wild.” It’s what happens the good gifts God gives are left unchecked by love. Leadership devolves into tyranny. Service moves from love-motivated to duty-motivated and begrudging. Discernment becomes cynicism… and cynics like me tend to not notice when we’ve crossed that line. We spend lots of time examining everything but ourselves.

We see differences in practice and elevate them to the level of differences in doctrine.

We create bogeymen for the purpose of “warning” those who might be less discerning than we are and to convince ourselves that our way is the only way.

We accuse those whose methods differ from our own of “trying too hard” at best, and deception at worst.

Cynicism, especially toward people and their motives, has an edge to it that mere discernment does not. It’s presumptuous. It always looks for ulterior motives, always distrusts, and always looks for a chance to say “I told you so.” It has no rightful place among our elders, our churches, or our presbyteries.

A few examples of these “bogeymen” we cynically create under the guise of caution…

• the wannabe Roman Catholic bogeyman, who appears if we’re in a church where the ministers wear collars or where Communion is practiced by intinction.
• the feminist bogeyman, who shows up if we see a woman publicly reading Scripture or praying during worship, or assisting with the Lord’s Supper. In our minds, this bogeyman is slowly, covertly working for the eventual ordination of women as deacons and elders in the PCA.
• folks like me love to create the TR bogeyman, who exists in suburban churches with high steeples, pipe organs, Trinity Hymnals, bowties, and lots of seersucker suits. This bogeyman allegedly hates urban church plants, “doesn’t get” mission or contextualization, and just wants us all to fall into (the old southern Presbyterian) line.

There are also liberal bogeymen, emergent bogeymen, Federal Visionist bogeymen (closely related to the wannabe Roman Catholic bogeyman), and all sorts I’m not even thinking of. When our cynicism makes enemies of friends, the results can be devastating for a church community. Uniformity is valued over unity, differences become divisions, and our traditions become the measuring stick by which we judge faithfulness, rather than the Scriptures.

Brothers and sisters, be discerning! Point out error where it exists, and clearly! Rebuke in love! Resist the temptation, however, to create bogeymen. Don’t create division where there is none. As Pastor Mike Campbell preached at this past year’s General Assembly, “in Christ, the divisions are gone — not the differences.”

Cynicism is not the way of love, friends, and thus it is not the way of Christ.