Woman deacons in the PCA's Metro NY Presbytery: liberal deform is predictable...

(Tim) Here are a few details gleaned from the roll of two recent meetings of Metropolitan New York Presbytery (PCA). Both presbytery meetings were held in the offices of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Manhattan, where Tim Keller serves.

First, the roll of Metro NY Presbytery's November 7, 2008 meeting records:

• Metro NY Presbytery has 82 pastors (TEs) and 24 churches
• Of those 82 pastors (TEs), 15 labor out of ecclesiastical bounds, 2 are honorably retired, 7 are without call, 1 is a church planter, 2 presbytery evangelists, 2 missionaries, and 10 organizing pastors (these men serve non-particularized churches with no local session or elders)
• Of the 82 pastors (TEs), 39 are not serving as pastors of a PCA church led by its own ruling elders (REs); thus 39 TEs do not work in yoke with ruling elders leading their own congregation
• Only 43 out of 82 pastors are serving a PCA church led by its own pastor and ruling elders
• Of these 43 pastors, 18 are Assistant Pastors while only 3 are Associate Pastors; the key distinction between Assistant and Associate Pastors--the distinction whose significance is not lost on any Senior, Associate, or Assistant Pastor in the PCA--is that Assistant Pastors are only called by, and serve at the will of, the Senior Pastor/Head of Staff and the Session he moderates, while Associate Pastors are called by, and serve at the will of, the congregation; in other words, Assistant Pastors come and go whereas Associate Pastors stay for a while (both pastors I serve with at CGS are Associate Pastors and I'd have a hard time convincing the congregation to let them go.)
• Of these 43 pastors, 7 serve Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan
• Of the 7 pastors serving Redeemer in Manhattan, Tim Keller is the only one with a call from the congregation; the other 6 pastors are all Assistant Pastors

To continue:

• Of these 43 pastors, 14 are (Solo) Pastors, 9 Senior Pastors, 3 Associate Pastors, and 18 Assistant Pastors
• Since Assistant Pastors wouldn't last long if they stood in opposition to their Senior Pastor, we may expect the Pastors, Senior Pastors, and Associate Pastors of Metro NY Presbytery lead the presbytery, making the arguments and casting the votes that really count. (Yes, I'm sure some will quibble over this, but long experience in one PC(USA) and three PCA presbyteries leads me to think this a simple truism. There are exceptions to the rule, of course; but they are exceptions.)
• When Metro NY Presbytery acts on women deacons, then, a valid argument can be made that 26 of the presbytery's votes are made by men called by a congregation to serve alongside, on parity with that congregation's Ruling Elders (14 Pastors, 9 Senior Pastors, and 3 Associate Pastors)
• Since a foundational principle of PCA polity is parity between Teaching Elders (pastors) and Ruling Elders, we would desire those 26 pastors who work with their congregation and its Ruling Elders to be assisted by 26 Ruling Elders from their congregations who take an equal part in Metro NY Presbtery's deliberations and votes
• Looking at it another way, since Metro NY Presbytery has 24 particular churches, we would desire at least 24 Ruling Elders to assist in the deliberations and votes at presbytyery
• At the November 7, 2008 Metro NY Presbytery meeting, though, there were ony 5 Ruling Elders present
• Of the 5 Ruling elders present, 2 of them were from Redeemer in Manhattan
• Of Metro NY Presbytery's 24 churches, 20 had no Ruling Elder representation (allowances should be made for unique difficulties faced by some of Metro NY Presbytery's ethnic congregations in getting a Ruling Elder to serve as a commissioner to presbytery)
• Debate was carried out and votes taken with 42 professional clergy, but only 5 elders

Second, the roll of Metro NY Presbytery's September 12, 2008 meeting records:

• At this meeting, also, there were only 5 Ruling elders present
• Of Metro NY Presbytery's 24 churches, 19 had no Ruling Elder representation
• There were 42 professional clergy, but only 5 elders voting

During my years in the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA), I kept close track of all the statistical results released by the General Assembly's Research Services. Regularly, surveys were collected from the Presbyterian Panel and the surveys' results showed again and again that liberalism is quite predictable:

• It concentrates in metro areas--particularly San Francisco and New York City. This is why we worked to get our denominational headquarters out of New York City. It was a great victory when all the denominational leaders left New York City for Louisville, Kentucky, where the PC(USA)'s headquarters still are based. It's also why our presbytery, John Knox, moved our offices and new Executive Presbyter out of Madison, Wisconsin, into Richland Center. Geography matters.
• It concentrates in particular offices. Pastors (TEs) are more liberal than elders (REs).
• Within the same office, the specific nature of the call does matter. Pastors not serving in a local church as Moderator of a Session are more liberal than pastors who do serve in that capacity, and within a local church.

Since bringing my congregation into the PCA back in 1992, I've seen much corroboration of these lessons learned in my prior denomination.

The stats listed above taken from the roll of two consecutive Metro NY Presbytery meetings lead me to conclude that, like in the PC(USA), so in the PCA:

• Places like New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and San Francisco will push for a liberalizing of the laws and practice of the PCA related to sexual matters, as we now see from 3 of those 4 metro areas in the documents related to woman deacons they've adopted in the past month.
• The purportedly conscientious objection to our Constitution on sexual matters--specifically woman deacons--will be led by Teaching Elders, not Ruling Elders (although some Ruling Elders will join in the effort).
• The purportedly conscientious objection to our Constitution on sexual matters--specifically woman deacons--will be led more by Teaching Elders serving in positions other than local parish ministry than those in a local congregation who moderate a Session.

Comments

[Kevin]

1) your observation about RE/TE ratio's hold true (I expect) in all Presbytries. In Eastern Canada, arguably the most "rural" in the PCA we face the same issue.

2) the acceptance of "deaconesses" is not ipso facto a sign that the liberals have taken over. At least two North American churches have recognised deaconesses without "the inevitable slide to ordaining women"

[Tim Bayly]

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/10/the-broader-con.html

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/06/dialog-is-vastl.html

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/09/dr-diane-langbe.html

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/05/sexuality-and-w.html

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/10/tim-pastor-tim-keller-recently-did-a-piece-promoting-woman-deacons-in-the-presbyterian-church-in-americas-byfaith-e-monthly.html

[Andrew Barnes]

Question, where did you get your information about this: "as we now see from 3 of those 4 metro areas in the documents related to woman deacons they've adopted in the past month."?

Thanks.

[Tim Bayly]

>where did you get your information...

From members of the three presbyteries. More later.

[Andrew Barnes]

Okay. Thanks. Just wondering where you get all your juicy information.

Can you reveal if they were submitting more overtures to GA or just statements in presbytery.

[PCA friend]

I'm assuming this information has been verified for accuracy and is offered in good faith.

How then, is it even possible to have a huge church in our denomination without:

1)associate pastor(s)
2)a large, active session (composed of ruling elders)
3)a large, active Diaconate?

[Eric Rasmusen]

I like all that detail. Thank you. Another detail you might add: Of the 42 clergymen attending, how many were associate or top pastors from the 26 "full" churches that we presume had ruling elders?

I was wondering because I wonder what kind of people talk and really "run" a presbytery. I know it depends on personalities a lot, but I'm curious as to who takes an interest.

It is indeed shocking that only 5 ruling elders showed up. Do any presbyteries have rules that make decisions invalid unless enough ruling elders show up? Would such a rule be a good idea?

[David Wegener]

Good comments, Eric.

I've been a part of two presbyteries, Great Lakes Presbytery and Ohio Valley Presbytery. I can never remember having only five ruling elders present. That's crazy and unhealthy.

There is always a struggle as to when you meet. Many ruling elders can't make meetings M-F, 9-5, because most have normal jobs. They like presbyteries to meet all day on Saturday. Teaching elders don't like that.

Our presbytery ended up meeting on Friday at noon until late and then on Saturday from morning until noon. Kind of a compromise.

Travel figured in there as well. The PCA began as a denomination based mainly in the south and spread north and east and west. That meant that midwest presbyteries were really spread-out.

Great Lakes Presbytery used to go from central Kentucky to Michigan and from Indianapolis to the Cleveland area. That meant long hours in the car, sometimes 11 hours one way. Presbyteries down south have an hour or two drive. Big difference.

Since we divided in half (roughly along I-70, churches and TEs north remaining in Great Lakes, churches and TEs south becoming Ohio Valley) driving distances have gotten more manageable. It would be interesting to see if ruling elder participation has gotten better.

I don't know of any rules in our presbyteries about necessary numbers for ruling elder participation. Tim or David might know that better.

[David Gilleran]

David,

BCO requires 3TE and 3RE for a quorum. This is leftover from the early days of the PCA and it needs to be changed.

[David Gilleran]

Also, a presbytery can set its own quorum my majority vote as long as it does not go below what the BCO states.

[David Gilleran]

my fault it should be "by majority vote" not my.

[Mason]

Pastor Bayly,

Thanks for the interesting statistics. I have two questions:

1. What is the typical composition of a PCA presbytery? Can you provide the roll of your presbytery's latest meeting or another typical southern or midwestern presbytery to see the difference? Not trying to make a point, just interested to see the actual differences between the Metro NY presbytery and other PCA presbyteries.

2. Given that the Federal Vision presbyteries and proponents are located in southern and rural areas, and that none are located in the 4 metro areas you mentioned, do you think that the big city churches, while perhaps more liberal in some areas, are more prone to heresy than anywhere else?

[Eric Wilson]

Mason,

Whether the big city churches are more prone to heresy than others is neither here nor there. The point is in how we respond to the heresy that we do see.

It's worth noting that your contrasting example of heresy was publicly dealt with. It seems that one might advocate equal treatment for our big city cousins?

You wouldn't want us to cast a blind eye to the sins of our brothers simply because they have the misfortune of living among the sophisticated elite?

In case you aren't understanding me, your second question leads me to suspect that you feel that Tim is "picking on" certain types of churches. That notion which many feel, is unbiblical, as shepherds are called to guard the flock, as Paul did. (Day and night with tears, etc. Acts 20:28-31)

If there are particular regional heresies that you see undisciplined in the PCA, I think we would all be happy to here about it.

[Tim Bayly]

Dear Mason,

Thanks for your questions. I've responded on the main page.

Warmly in Christ,

[JHL]

If not careful, the multi-site church models in particular like Redeemer NYC and Harbor Pres - San Diego will tend towards not having a session for each local congregation. E.g. With the superstructure of an organization, you would not need to have ruling elders out of every regular worship site. Everyone has a vote, but if not presented with candidates whom they really know well, the local site congregation would just vote for whomever was presented unless there were a large red flag. So you ultimately will get an episcopal or business/corporate model: a "senior" pastor acting like a bishop, with a team of associates overseeing each site, and perhaps some assistants called. Some of the associates or assistants will manage ministries not directly accountable to church members but rather only to the senior team. The bishop/president can end up through whether respect or political power base --like a king with a council of lords over which executes through the mid-level associate / VP, and the parish priest/unit managers. Each of the associates might then set up their own subkingdom with several sites under them --- which with concurrence of the senior pastor and super-session, they could then call assistants for each local site who are very much under the control of the senior team.

Whatever the original motivation for this structure, the practical result is that in this setting, decisions are very top-down. Control is much more easy. An influence over a large voting block of teaching elders is ensured at the presbytery level. Lower level assistants (parish priests) are dependent for a salary on the higher level senior team like a feudal system of control. The local site congregation actually does not have much say. They might not even have an elder representing them from their own site whom they know personally. Thus all the check built into the BCO to ensure freedom of local churches (e.g. to object, to keep its own property, to withdraw from a denomination -- or an affiliation with the mutli-site church, to appeal to a higher church court) is taken away or at least functionally drastically reduced.

Mission to the World has a system that similarly looks functionally episcopal. And control of the missionary can be very much achieved through financial incentives. Yes, the GA Committee on MTW is technically over the "coordinator" and can approve or disallow various decisions, but actually the coordinator, appoints region directors, who appoint country directors, and team leaders. So many decisions are made that it is hard for a small GA committee to oversee it.

A contrasting system would be for the presbyteries to directly issue the calls of missionaries, and to assume responsibility for the assessment of qualification. The presbyteries would set budgets. There could be a diaconal ministry to handle the funds. Then on the field the ordained teaching elder missionaries would form a presbytery where they jointly make decisions for the field.

Returning to the local PCA presbyteries, I would recommend that any mutli-site churches work towards having several ruling elders elected in each regular meeting location. And as the multitude of sites expands, then the church should consider letting the chicks fly from the nest.

[PCA friend]

"A contrasting system would be for the presbyteries to directly issue the calls of missionaries, and to assume responsibility for the assessment of qualification. The presbyteries would set budgets. There could be a diaconal ministry to handle the funds. Then on the field the ordained teaching elder missionaries would form a presbytery where they jointly make decisions for the field. "

JHL,

Have you considered putting forth a proposal like this so it could be evaluated and considered (perhaps at General Assembly)?

Thanks for your insight.

[David Gilleran]

JHL,
If I remember correctly you idea about presbyteries calling missionaries and doing the budgeting work was floated in the 80's and met with great opposition from MNA. The primary objection is that a presbytery does not have the expertise to handle the administrative issues. Now with the internet revolution, perhaps it is time to revisit this idea.

[Mason]

Eric,

Pastor Bayly seemed to be making two points with his post:

1. The Metro NYC presbytery's representation is "bad," and thus it may be more prone to liberalism due to the high ratio of TEs to REs, and the high number of assistant pastors compared to associate pastors.

2. Liberalism is more prominent in the larger metro area presbyteries than throughout the rest of the country.

My response was intended address each of these points. My first question was to determine how "bad" the NY Metro presbyteries numbers are compared to other presbyteries. Pastor Bayly may very well be correct that NYC Metro has worse numbers than others, and inadequate RE representation (though sufficient according to the BCO). But how do we know? In his subsequent post he admitted that he has a problem with RE attendance at his presbytery's meetings as well. How do we know the numbers in his presbytery are any better? If we took a random sample of stats from each presbytery across the country, would they look much different from NYC Metro? I have no idea, and frankly I don't think he does either, since he doesn't even have the stats from his own presbytery (through no fault of his own). So in the absence of ANY supporting data, there's no reason to believe the number of NYC Metro are any worse or better than any other PCA presbytery. Even if they are, it certainly doesn't prove they are more prone to error.

As for Pastor Bayly's second point about bigger cities being more prone to liberalism, I couldn't agree more. Big cities are more liberal socially and politically, and that is true of the churches as well - I don't think anyone can argue this. But the problem I have with his reasoning is that he implies the relative "liberalism" of the NYC churches (and other big city churches) is somehow automatically a negative. Obviously there is a danger of becoming too liberal, but who's to say some of the "heartland" churches aren't too conservative? Who makes the determination of what is too liberal and what is too conservative? So long as we're in bounds of Scripture, the WCF, and the BCO, what difference does it really make?

As for the female deacon issue, multiple conservative reformed denominations have them (as Kevin pointed out above), and PCA churches have had (non-ordained) female deacons since their founding, and have been repeatedly approved by their respective presbyteries with no censure (that I'm aware of) from the GA. So a church with female deacons may be liberal relative to many other PCA churches, but it shouldn't imply that churched is engrossed in liberal policy, practice, or heresy.

Finally, the point about the FV is to show that relative liberalism doesn't necessarily lead to heresy; having female deacons is nowhere close to heresy. At the same time, the FV arose out of fairly "conservative" circles in the PCA. So which is worse, having a "liberal" practice such as non-ordained female deacons, or modifying essentials of the faith such as election, justification, and perseverance?

If there is heresy in my church or the Metro NYC presbytery, I want to know about it. But so far none has come to light, likely because none actually exists.

[Mason]

JHL - you make some good points, but I don't think you understand Redeemer NYC's structure. While there are 5 different services at 3 locations on Sunday (due to the logistical problems of a large church in Manhattan), great care is taken to ensure a cohesion and unity among all the members. For starters, the assistant pastors and worship leaders rotate through the different locations, to ensure everyone has more or less the same experience. The elders are elected by a congregation-wide nomination and election process, and the congregational meetings are held to allow attendance of the entire body of members, and are not done on a site by site basis.

So Redeemer is no different than any church that has multiple worship services other than the services are held at different locations. Otherwise there is no functional difference.

[Tim Bayly]

>If we took a random sample of stats from each presbytery across the country, would they look much different from NYC Metro?

Dear Mason,

The answer to your question is "yes." The stats from your presbytery are exceptionally bad, and presbyters reading this blog know it. My argument depends upon things known by pastors and elders from long experience attending presbytery meetings, and those with experience heard me.

This is a problem across the PCA, but the rolls of these two meetings of Metro NY Presbytery are a whole different level of problematic.

>who's to say some of the "heartland" churches aren't too conservative?

They are, if you move away from guarding the good deposit of Scripture. But how can you be too conservative on that?

You're mixing categories. I was specific concerning the liberalism of New York and San Francisco, pointing directly to sex. There's where New York and San Francisco are seeking to undermine Scripture and our Book of Church Order.

Sex.

>Who makes the determination of what is too liberal and what is too conservative? So long as we're in bounds of Scripture, the WCF, and the BCO, what difference does it really make?

The practices within, and position adopted by, Metro NY Presbytery are contrary to Scripture and to the Book of Church Order. Directly contrary. And it's sex those acts of disobedience have to do with--specifically the sex of church office and authority.

It makes a difference because our ordination vows bind us to submission to the Word of God and our Book of Church Order. When we break our vows, we must be led to repentance through admonishment, rebuke, censure, and so forth until we repent or demonstrate ourselves to be hopelessly contumacious. This is true for individual presbyters and whole presbyteries, alike.

>As for the female deacon issue, multiple conservative reformed denominations have them

Wrong, dear brother. No conservative reformed denomination in history has approved anything approximating what the churches in your presbytery do, nor the policy your presbytery adopted. None.

Read the "Deacon and Deaconess" category here for correction of your error.

There are other reformed denominations which allow--even promote--what your presbytery has adopted, but those denominations are in thrall to the egalitarian feminist ideology of our day. Which brings me to a question: I've always wondered why churches like Redeemer (Manhattan) and Trinity don't simply join a feminist egalitarian denomination that allows what they practice? It wouldn't make them less wrong, but at least they'd have lots of company and wouldn't be causing division in the PCA.

By the way, having deaconesses is no heresy. Where did I say it was? It's the egalitarian feminism that woman deacons serves as a Trojan Horse that is the heresy.

So, we're back to New York City and San Francisco and sex, aren't we?

[David Gilleran]

Correction not MNA but MTW

[Andrew Barnes]

The FV is NOT only in southern/rural areas. Have you looked at Missouri Presbytery (ST. LOUIS, MO)?

I know for a fact of a NPP (maybe FV) guy at Redeemer in NY. I won't devulge the name, you can figure it out.

[Mason]

>The practices within, and position adopted by, Metro NY Presbytery are contrary to Scripture and to the Book of Church Order. Directly contrary. And it's sex those acts of disobedience have to do with--specifically the sex of church office and authority.

>It makes a difference because our ordination vows bind us to submission to the Word of God and our Book of Church Order. When we break our vows, we must be led to repentance through admonishment, rebuke, censure, and so forth until we repent or demonstrate ourselves to be hopelessly contumacious. This is true for individual presbyters and whole presbyteries, alike.

As you know, since you wrote about it on this blog, Pastor Keller bases his position on female deacons on Scripture and the BCO. So to say the Metro NYC's policy on female deacons is "directly contrary" to Scripture and the BCO is not true. Now, you may disagree with said policies, but you have a hard time proving they are anti-BCO or anti-Scriptural.

If you're so convinced that you're right and that the Metro NYC presbytery is in need of "admonishment, rebuke, and censure," why not pursue it through the appropriate channels to see that it happens? In 20 years no one has raised any formal objection to the way they handle female deacons. If they are so clearly acting against the BCO and Scripture, why hasn't this been done? Why spend time talking about it on the internet rather than pursuing it formally? Personally, I would love to see it happen and see the issue dealt with once and for all.

>Which brings me to a question: I've always wondered why churches like Redeemer (Manhattan) and Trinity don't simply join a feminist egalitarian denomination that allows what they practice?

>By the way, having deaconesses is no heresy. Where did I say it was? It's the egalitarian feminism that woman deacons serves as a Trojan Horse that is the heresy.

>So, we're back to New York City and San Francisco and sex, aren't we?

The PCA does allow what they practice, which is why they practice it openly and write articles in the denomination's magazine to defend it.

The point about heresy and the FV is that worse problems and divisions have recently risen from the conservative circles of the PCA. I truly appreciate your concern about maintaining the integrity of Scripture and avoiding undue secular feminist influence in the church, but quibbling over non-ordained women servants doesn't seem like a top priority. Perhaps to address the bigger issues we should focus on the more conservative churches, which seem to be the source of the biggest problems.

[PCA friend]

Mason,

I can understand the shock of the import of these statistics, assuming they are correct, are put in context, and are offered in good faith. Those qualifications are necessary when we deal truthfully with one another, and especially within the household of faith.

I'm concerned by this because it does not represent what I have seen or understand to be our governance (in my limited exposure).

Also, I would allow for the unique geographic and demographic impacts that would apply, some of which you rightly point out.

Assuming and allowing all that, a few things jump out, they do not change:

1) In our biblically based polity, a large church must have associate pastors

2) A large church must have a good-sized plurality of ruling elders, from whom comes administration of the church.

3) A large church must have a good-size Diaconate, an important part of the governance of the church.

Above all else, Presbyterians are not hierarchical.

Dominance in ruling or representation at presbytery is not to come from one person or even "teaching elders" per se, because the governance gifting comes primarily from ruling elders. This is because ruling elders are chosen for the gift of administering, teaching elders are chosen for the gift of teaching. Ruling elders far outnumber teaching elders because teaching is such a (rare) gifting, comparatively.

So, in a large church particularly, one might expect say 1 Senior Pastor, 3 or 4 Associate Pastors (don't forget these often provide Pastoral care/counseling to the congregation, and 24 ruling elders.

The leadership of the church would mainly come from other than the senior teaching elder (senior Pastor). That benefits the teaching elder who is free to devote himself to the carefully handling of God's Word. It also recognizes the gifts of those God has called to administrate (ruling elders).

Diaconates are likewise fully constituted governing bodies under our BCO. While they are under overall authority of the Session they are tasked with many important governing responsibilities:

1)overseeing mercy ministry
2)overseeing property stewardship
a) Oversight and involvement in budget,
b) Maintaining property (including money)
3)developing a spirit of liberality amongst the
congregation

Diaconate and Session meet regularly (and are required to do so in the BCO).

Diaconate in accordance with Scripture is men only and is part of the basic governance of the church.

So, our polity should reflect governance coming through a plurality of elders (not focused on one senior pastor), and a fully constituted Diaconate.

Unordained men and women will assist, particularly the Deacons, in their many responsibilities, but they are not officers.

It's always a danger when one person gets too much power- we, as Presbyterians, above all else, know that. The accountability of the Senior Pastor to a session that does the governing collectively with much administrative governance practically done through a fully constituted Diaconate, is our polity.

We all need accountability, which is used of God to bring forth faith and repentance, whether we go off doctrinally (e.g. "liberalism" or "federal vision") or allow one person to become too dependent on one person, their power and governing.

[Tim Bayly]

>Pastor Keller bases his position on female deacons on Scripture and the BCO.

Even in our day, among Christians words still have meanings. If Scripture and the Book of Church Order are the basis of Redeemer's practice of woman deacons and the position adopted by Metro NY Presbytery, words are meaningless and the rule of law is over in the PCA. Which is simply to say that you omitted a couple words crucial to the truthfulness of your sentence. What you should have written is that "Pastor Keller claims the basis of his position on female deacons is Scripture and the Book of Church Order."

It will be up to our fellow presbyters to decide if Tim Keller saying it's so is sufficient to make it so.

[JHL]

Dear all,

Thanks for your feedback and encouragement at my comment.

Mason: I was saying "if not careful," there will be a tendency towards... so I am glad you report that Redeemer is being careful. You are right. There could also be a similar problem with a single site church with multiple services. The difference is that multisite naturally leads to people specifically relating to their local site as it if is their church. In contrast, multi-service church in a single site would naturally tend to people identify with the whole church and even attending the other services.

W.R.T. the proposal: I would like to spend some time this year developing a different mission sending model. As with the training of pastors, I think God has equipped the local churches and presbyteries with what is needed to do the task of world missions. Deacons or ministries under the management of deacons can take care of the diaconal issues with missionaries (setting up non-profit, dealing with government, taxes, visas to enter foreign countries, helping with issues of medical insurance and retirement, etc.) and serve in a purely service-function, not oversight function. All of the oversight, vision, direction, etc. can come from the presbyteries and from the teaching elders on the field, forming their own functioning presbytery or working with the local presbytery on the field. Any unordained missionaries can still be evaluated by the sending presbytery and also under the authority of the teaching elders on the field as they would be if they were helping with evangelism or a church planting ministry in the U.S. With the diaconal sending service set up, presbyteries can cooperate to deal with universal issues -- e.g. salaries, federal taxes, insurance etc.

I hesitate to send this model or proposal to the GA or presbyteries too soon without carefully addressing every issue because there may be the same kinds of arguments and gut reactions that Thornwell got (ref: The Debate of the Administration of Missions led by James Henley Thornwell -- by Kenneth J. Foreman, Jr. 1977) -- feelings of threat or lack of being respected or valued by the people currently working at MTW's home office and currently in the leadership teams. Attitudes of --- if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Questions of -- you are not loyal to our denominations institution. Ideas of -- you are being factional or divisive. Thoughts from presbyters -- we really are not capable of handling all this mission stuff. We have no experience with foreign missions. Acting out of fear -- what about law suits. What about training -- don't we need that $10,000 per family month-long pre-field training in New York City or Belgium that MTW does now? We don't know how to do things cross-culturally or how to advise the missionaries.! What if someone we evaluate and approve turns out to be a disaster! What about insurance!

The same type of issue is at work some times when ruling elders do not speak up because they actually do not think they know their Bible's well enough to rightly divide the word. Instead of diligently studying the Scriptures in the local church, they don't even bother trying because they think that one must, as teaching elders, get degrees at seminary. The ruling elders with then tend to act like members of the board of directors and focus more on money questions.

But fortunately more presbyteries are realizing that they can evaluate, fund and send church planters in their own region without needing MNA's assessment center etc. As they feel more and more empowered to do this, then perhaps they will begin to realize that God has indeed equipped them to do all the tasks of a body of under-shepherds. They may not have a Ph.D. in psychology or a fancy test, but they are qualified and capable as a body meeting in session under the Holy Spirit's guidance and with all the resources of the Word of God to interview and evaluate a missionary candidate's qualifications and giftedness to know whether or not it is good for the person to be sent to the mission field.

Sometimes we think we are using our God-given wisdom and experience when actually we are just using the world's human wisdom. I think God's foolishness is better than man's wisdom and I would want to rely on a clear pattern given in the Bible any day over what the experts and truly experienced people tell us that we must do or cannot neglect to do. I tend to think that God uses the weak things of the world to shame the wise and that the person judged not "fit" by the world's standards may actually be used the most effectively.

And for this very reason, I think it is with the elders sitting in session that these decisions should be made.

Anyway, when I get something written up, I'd humbly like to submit it to some of you for your feedback and suggestions for improvement.

Please keep an eye out for it in the next few months. The Lord willing a draft can be written up.

[Joseph Bayly]

I'd like to read that, JHL.

Get to work!

:)