By the way, I accept it as fair that if a person advocates positions in writing, his ideas may be criticized and disagreed with vigorously—I won’t squeal about spirited and rational public discourse. Indeed, more of that may lead to more peace rather than less. Perhaps some readers will agree that good interaction, even allowing dissent, may have positive effects and consider my suggestions about discourse, which ask us to think objectively about methods, well-intentioned leaders, and power as we move forward. I imagine Dr. Aquila, who was also whined about because his “news magazine” – published relevant previous GA Minutes…and a discursive article, might even invite equal time for folks to continue this debate in his magazine, especially since some publications cannot find the digital space to include articles that do not support their editorial agenda.
“By the way, I accept it as fair that if a person advocates positions in writing, his ideas may be criticized and disagreed with vigorously—I won’t squeal about spirited and rational public discourse.”
I have encountered the opinion amongst some conservative Presbyterians which basically says that no ordained officer in the church may be publicly criticized, even for public statements and public writings, outside of the narrow bounds of the church courts and the context of formal judicial charges.
Certainly ordained officers in the church ought to be held in high regard in view of their calling, and ought not to be publicly criticized without good cause. And, of course, slandering and bearing false witness against church officers is a very serious sin which has great potential to cause harm to the unity of the church. But it is absurd to think that men who hold public church office may not be criticized publicly for their public teachings and/or statements. Such a position which holds that church officers may only be publicly criticized within the context of formal church court proceedings comes dangerously close to the hyper-Pentecostalist, “touch not the Lord’s anointed” view which disallows any criticisms of their leaders.
Bottom line, Hall is right: If you make public pronouncements (through sermons, speeches, publications, blog posts, internet comments, or whatever) you are by that action opening your views up to public examination and thus public critique. This applies equally to the non-ordained AND the ordained. (In fact, I would argue that it applies even more so to the ordained, since we are to be held to a higher standard.) As the saying goes, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
“I have encountered the opinion amongst some conservative Presbyterians which basically says that no ordained officer in the church may be publicly criticized.”
Yep, me too. I have also encountered what can only be described as a deeply held “over realized eschatology and ecclesiology ” within NAPARC. One that manifests itself in all sorts of ways, this being only one way of them. It is rooted in a systemic idea that the fall, sin and total depravity are true, except just not nearly that bad when it comes to the institution of the church. As if somehow “the office of elder” has some special charismatic 2nd blessing making it a bit more immune from sin. Out comes the wax nose on certain topics.
This flat out dangerous. I think these folks need to lean less on tradition and pride and read their Bibles a lot more. Also, for a reality check from a very good film, they may want to rent the movie Spotlight. (Won Best Picture last year, about the Roman catholic pedophile scandal) Whatever the issue, error or sin, men are not immune.
NAPARC take heed, say no to Protestant Sacerdotalism and holding too high view of the institutional church.
“NAPARC take heed, say no to Protestant Sacerdotalism and holding too high view of the institutional church.”
The thing is, having a biblically-high view of the institutional/visible church (without the sacerdotalism, of course) ought to go hand-in-hand with having a low view of human nature (i.e., total depravity) and a realistically-cautious view when it comes to the sanctification of church officers.
For example, a biblically-high view of the visible church means that candidates for church office ought to be expected to meet high standards (both academically and morally) for ordination. It also means having a high view of church discipline, and thus the expectation that church officers who fall into scandalous sin and/or heresy will come under the church’s just censures, up to divestment from office and even excommunication when continuing impenitence makes such censure necessary.
Geoff,
I agree with your points.
Do you think it is possible to have a too high a view of the institutional/ visible church?
Yes, if the visible church in effect replaces Christ and His saving work in one’s thinking, then one has “too high” a view of the institutional church and too low a view of Christ.
Geoff,
While you are thinking about the answer to my question, I will just lay my cards on the table. I in fact have a very high view of the church. However, I think it is often a blind spot amongst NAPARC folk in having too high a view of the visible church. I get it, the bigger problem in the broader Evangelical world is too low a view of the church. However, at times in the Reformed world (as difficult as this is for people to understand, especially those who are otherwise staunchly reformed and especially sometimes for elders to understand) there is such a thing as to high a view of the church. There is such a thing as Presbyterian Sacerdotalism, functionally anyway. To hear some talk in a high and lifted up fashion when describing the visible Church and its community therein, this becomes clear. When in fact it is most Biblical that it be Christ who should be high and lifted up. He must increase, we must decrease. IE….what is worthy of greater importance is Christ#1 and then the invisible church, hence by inference put in a more secondary importance is indeed the institutional/ visible church. Again, that is not to say it (visible church) is not very important, but simple put this is the correct Bibllical order of importance. The visible church is very important, without it there is “no ordinary” way folks can be saved without it.
I in no way intend to press my point to un- Biblical extremes in disrespect towards the office of Pastor/ Elder. The work you Pastor’s do is important and good Reformed pastors are worthy of double respect.
I have some other thoughts, but would first like to hear your feed back and answer to my question. Do you think it is possible to have a too high a view of the institutional / visible church ?
From your comments it sounds like we are basically on the same page on this matter.