To never be a Deacon or an Elder...
Question: Would you join a local congregation knowing you would be excluded from holding either office of deacon or elder?
I am asking this question from a complimentarian view. That is, I am against "eldressess" or "pastrixes" and see no biblical support for women holding such roles. While on the topic, I *do* see the capacity of women to hold the role of deaconess. But that is not what I am referring to. The issue is not one of gender requirements; it is one of belief or conviction.
I am Reformed (NO! REALLY?!??!). I am also a convinced credobaptist, wishing to bestow the visible sign of the New Covenant to those who are actually members of that covenant - namely those who repent of sin and place their trust in Christ Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. Are there false converts? Yes. Credobaptists baptize many many many who are not truly of the the New Covenant, though they profess to be. This is due to our inability to know the heart, of course. The elders cannot look into the heart to see if God has taken out the heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36 - 37), which is definitional to the New Covenant itself. It is this very definitional aspect of the New Covenant which drives me toward a credobaptist understanding and away from a paedobaptist understanding of the sacrament. The unregenerate babe does not have his heart of stone replaced by a heart of flesh - otherwise he would be regenerate! The unregenerate person is not part of the New Covenant, which brings with it the explicit promise of the forgiveness of sins. Those who are in the New Covenant now have their sins forgiven now; the author of Hebrews believed and wrote as much. (Any attempt under the "already/not yet principle" to push the declaration that all in the New Covenant know God intimately and need not be evangelized further is a conclusion derived from external tradition and not derived from the author's own argument in Hebrews.) The New Covenant consists of believers, and believers only. It is akin to the invisible church, not the visible church. As such, baptism must not be administered purposefully to those outside of the New Covenant, which is contrary to the purpose and meaning of baptism.
That was a bit of a soap box... not even the soap box I meant to get on in this post. I provided it only as a means to show that I have considered both sides of this argument, but am forced to come down on the side I believe is most consistent with the Bible - that of credobaptism. We require a credible statement of repentance and faith for the administration of the Eucharist (Communion). Why should we not also require such for the sacrament of baptism?
My conundrum is that, though I am a credobaptist, my wife and I had been attending and serving at a Presbyterian congregation for a number of months. We love the congregation and those who serve there. They are a group of God-fearing men and women who love Jesus and strive to make Him known to others. I would not doubt their standing before God and see that they are united with Christ as his precious bride whom he died for. Additionally, we love the *how* they worship on Sunday morning when they gather. Hymns proclaiming deep theology are forefront (even done in the style of Indelible Grace and Red Mountain Church!). Confession is part of the worship also. Communion is taken more than once a month. We love it.
One concern I have deals with is what submition to the Elders and Presbytary would mean. Being a credobaptist in a paedobaptist congregation (and denomination) does not prohibit me from participating in worship. Nor would it prohibit me from becoming a member of that congregation. The EPC denomination does not require the affirmation the Westminster Standards on the part of members. However, the EPC does require affirmation of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the part of any who would be deacons or elders. With this in mind, I would be excluded from serving in the church, as I hold to a conviction regarding baptism that is blatantly counter to that of Presbyterianism.
I am not seeking to be a pastor or an elder. Deacon is a service role, not a leadership role, so that is somewhat different. My point is I am not out looking to get power or control in church. I know a young woman who, in high school, assured me that it was her ambition to someday "run the church" we were both in at the time. (YIKES!) I don't want power or control. It is not something I am looking for or after. I cannot emphasize this disclaimer enough. It is not something I am seeking.
Yet, being in a paedobaptist church would nullify me from being used of God in such a capacity in the future. To willingly place myself in such a congregation in which I would be, in essence, refusing to allow for my serving in a leading servant role could be seen as sinful neglect of God's work. "Here's a sure-fire way God will never call me to a role of deacon or elder! I'll join a congregation that could not appoint me to such a role!" I am not stating that there are no other roles for a Christian to play OTHER than that of deacon(/ess) or elder. There are plenty and God uses them much in his work and building his Church.
To place myself (and my family) in a situation that precludes service in that way seems unwise.
There is an alternative, of course... JUST BELIEVE IN COVENANTAL INFANT BAPTISM!! In some more candid moments... I would admit that I would like nothing more than to fall in line and believe it with my Presbyterian brethren!!! To just see a far more stricter continuity between Old and New Covenants ... to see circumcision of the flesh as being a picture of and replaced by baptism... to see the Old and New Covenant makeup being that of both regenerate and unregenerate. To see the New Covenant as new-ish in comparison to the Old Covenant - rather than the "newness" of the New Covenant that the credobaptist position holds to.
I will post more soon on the flirting I have been undergoing regarding the Paedobaptist position - particularly regarding some of the arguments I have encountered as reasons to baptize infants as covenant children. There are only one or two arguments/responses that hold ANY weight with me in the question of baptizing infants- and they both deal with the nature and makeup of the New Covenant. Again, more on that another time.
I pose the question: Would you willingly join a church that would prohibit you, based on your conscience, from holding a role as deacon or elder in the congregation - due to your convictions regarding what the Scripture taught on something the congregation thought to be a slightly closed-handed issue? Not just baptism.... but suppose a congregation required its elders and deacons to be Dispensational? or Covenantal? and you differed? What would you do?
I am asking this question from a complimentarian view. That is, I am against "eldressess" or "pastrixes" and see no biblical support for women holding such roles. While on the topic, I *do* see the capacity of women to hold the role of deaconess. But that is not what I am referring to. The issue is not one of gender requirements; it is one of belief or conviction.
I am Reformed (NO! REALLY?!??!). I am also a convinced credobaptist, wishing to bestow the visible sign of the New Covenant to those who are actually members of that covenant - namely those who repent of sin and place their trust in Christ Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. Are there false converts? Yes. Credobaptists baptize many many many who are not truly of the the New Covenant, though they profess to be. This is due to our inability to know the heart, of course. The elders cannot look into the heart to see if God has taken out the heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36 - 37), which is definitional to the New Covenant itself. It is this very definitional aspect of the New Covenant which drives me toward a credobaptist understanding and away from a paedobaptist understanding of the sacrament. The unregenerate babe does not have his heart of stone replaced by a heart of flesh - otherwise he would be regenerate! The unregenerate person is not part of the New Covenant, which brings with it the explicit promise of the forgiveness of sins. Those who are in the New Covenant now have their sins forgiven now; the author of Hebrews believed and wrote as much. (Any attempt under the "already/not yet principle" to push the declaration that all in the New Covenant know God intimately and need not be evangelized further is a conclusion derived from external tradition and not derived from the author's own argument in Hebrews.) The New Covenant consists of believers, and believers only. It is akin to the invisible church, not the visible church. As such, baptism must not be administered purposefully to those outside of the New Covenant, which is contrary to the purpose and meaning of baptism.
That was a bit of a soap box... not even the soap box I meant to get on in this post. I provided it only as a means to show that I have considered both sides of this argument, but am forced to come down on the side I believe is most consistent with the Bible - that of credobaptism. We require a credible statement of repentance and faith for the administration of the Eucharist (Communion). Why should we not also require such for the sacrament of baptism?
My conundrum is that, though I am a credobaptist, my wife and I had been attending and serving at a Presbyterian congregation for a number of months. We love the congregation and those who serve there. They are a group of God-fearing men and women who love Jesus and strive to make Him known to others. I would not doubt their standing before God and see that they are united with Christ as his precious bride whom he died for. Additionally, we love the *how* they worship on Sunday morning when they gather. Hymns proclaiming deep theology are forefront (even done in the style of Indelible Grace and Red Mountain Church!). Confession is part of the worship also. Communion is taken more than once a month. We love it.
One concern I have deals with is what submition to the Elders and Presbytary would mean. Being a credobaptist in a paedobaptist congregation (and denomination) does not prohibit me from participating in worship. Nor would it prohibit me from becoming a member of that congregation. The EPC denomination does not require the affirmation the Westminster Standards on the part of members. However, the EPC does require affirmation of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the part of any who would be deacons or elders. With this in mind, I would be excluded from serving in the church, as I hold to a conviction regarding baptism that is blatantly counter to that of Presbyterianism.
I am not seeking to be a pastor or an elder. Deacon is a service role, not a leadership role, so that is somewhat different. My point is I am not out looking to get power or control in church. I know a young woman who, in high school, assured me that it was her ambition to someday "run the church" we were both in at the time. (YIKES!) I don't want power or control. It is not something I am looking for or after. I cannot emphasize this disclaimer enough. It is not something I am seeking.
Yet, being in a paedobaptist church would nullify me from being used of God in such a capacity in the future. To willingly place myself in such a congregation in which I would be, in essence, refusing to allow for my serving in a leading servant role could be seen as sinful neglect of God's work. "Here's a sure-fire way God will never call me to a role of deacon or elder! I'll join a congregation that could not appoint me to such a role!" I am not stating that there are no other roles for a Christian to play OTHER than that of deacon(/ess) or elder. There are plenty and God uses them much in his work and building his Church.
To place myself (and my family) in a situation that precludes service in that way seems unwise.
There is an alternative, of course... JUST BELIEVE IN COVENANTAL INFANT BAPTISM!! In some more candid moments... I would admit that I would like nothing more than to fall in line and believe it with my Presbyterian brethren!!! To just see a far more stricter continuity between Old and New Covenants ... to see circumcision of the flesh as being a picture of and replaced by baptism... to see the Old and New Covenant makeup being that of both regenerate and unregenerate. To see the New Covenant as new-ish in comparison to the Old Covenant - rather than the "newness" of the New Covenant that the credobaptist position holds to.
I will post more soon on the flirting I have been undergoing regarding the Paedobaptist position - particularly regarding some of the arguments I have encountered as reasons to baptize infants as covenant children. There are only one or two arguments/responses that hold ANY weight with me in the question of baptizing infants- and they both deal with the nature and makeup of the New Covenant. Again, more on that another time.
I pose the question: Would you willingly join a church that would prohibit you, based on your conscience, from holding a role as deacon or elder in the congregation - due to your convictions regarding what the Scripture taught on something the congregation thought to be a slightly closed-handed issue? Not just baptism.... but suppose a congregation required its elders and deacons to be Dispensational? or Covenantal? and you differed? What would you do?
Comments
Post a Comment