What's In A Name

It happened once again as it does about twice a month. Arriving at the memorial gardens to officiate the burial of a church member’s mother, I chatted with the young undertaker as we waited for all the cars to pull up.

“So,” he began, “What is Orthodox Presbyterian?”

I guess I am not a good Orthodox Presbyterian, because this is the point at which I always feel a little apologetic.

“Well,” I always begin sheepishly, “It doesn’t mean Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox or any thing like that. It means” – and, here, I always begin searching my own mind – “It means, basically, conservative Presbyterian. It sounded great in 1936.”

Suddenly, a bold idea struck me. I asked him, “What did you imagine it to mean?”

“The strictest of something, I guess,” he answered. Yes. Don’t we all guess?

When first visiting our church and reading in small print on the back of our bulletin – “Rockford Springs Community Church is a congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church” – a young woman looked at her husband and quipped, “If they bring a goat down the aisle for sacrifice, I’m leaving.” This young woman and her husband are now fantastic, active members. I got them over the name.

In a church information class a few years ago, after explaining what Orthodox Presbyterian meant, a woman looked at me quizzically and asked, “What is Orthodox Presbyterian?” I looked back at her as baffled and then realized she was still stuck on trying to really understand what the Orthodox Church had to do with the Presbyterian Church (Presbyterian is hard enough).

“Oh, no, no,” I corrected her, “It has nothing to do with the eastern or Greek Orthodox Church or Russian or anything like that.”

I know what you are thinking. If we had that name on our sign outside to begin with we wouldn’t have that problem. You are right. We wouldn’t have that but neither would we have about three fourths of our members (including church officers) who have said that if we had Orthodox on our sign they never would have visited.

Having been a pastor in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and still receiving e-mails in Greek, I have learned two things about naming a church: 1) Culturally, the connotation of a church name supersedes it’s definition and 2) the intent of the church’s name is to communicate something understandable to the community in which it finds itself.

Yes, I know. I am supposed to be thankful to explain the rich meaning of our name. Let’s see, the litany goes something like this:

“Orthodox Presbyterian. Ortho is Greek and it means ‘straight’. Dox is Greek and means ‘teaching’, so, orthodox means ‘straight teaching’. That’s clear, isn’t it?” Then I remembered an article in the New Horizons in which two OP pastors where debating the actual meaning of ‘orthodox’. Obviously, the word has to be interpreted dynamically. I would say that it really means, “sound teaching.” This brings me to the third thing I learned about naming a church: if you have to break it down etymologically and then dynamically, you may as well throw it out.

Once, somehow, a brief discussion arose in a presbytery meeting, about the name Orthodox Presbyterian. It was a very emotional discussion. There is a lot of pride surrounding the name. In 1936, the name served as a banner to rally conservative Presbyterians to the new standard. It served its purpose.

The names we give to our church and our congregations are not to help us feel secure about who we are or what we are. Names are intended to communicate something to people in the community which they can understand and, to some degree, to which they can relate. People make associations. Names should not be unnecessary stumbling blocks for them. Names should be as easily understandable as possible. The people the Lord is drawing to himself want to connect the name of a church to the Bible or, at least, to what they associate with the Bible. They don’t want to connect it to church history or to eastern culture. You can see from my letter that I would love for the OPC to change its name. After all, it is for those we are trying to reach.

Descended into Hell: A discussion on the Apostle's Creed

Our session has had some discussion about the Apostle’s Creed and the phrase, “he descended into hell.” Some believe the expression should be retained and that Calvin believed that Jesus, after his death actually descended into hell. Below I quote Calvin from the translation by Henry Beverage (public domain). Following is Dabney’s interpretation of Calvin and the Larger Catechism on the same phrase.

“But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ's descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. We lately quoted from the Prophet, that the "chastisement of our peace was laid upon him" that he "was bruised for our iniquities" that he "bore our infirmities;" expressions which intimate, that, like a sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgement which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price - that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.” Calvin, Institutes, Beverage translation, online.

The event – “the descent into hell” preceded the burial; although, in the creed, it is placed after the burial. Calvin writes that we should not think it absurd that an event – “the discent into hell” [suffering of the pains of hell] - should be place after the burial in the formula of creed. The “pains of hell” is what he “endured in the sight of man”, meaning while he was on the cross.

At best, at least from the Beverage translation, it is difficult to say definetly what Calvin meant. The great southern Presbyterian theologian, Robert Louis Dabney, interpretated Calvin as saying that Christ suffered the pains of hell on the cross before death:

“Calvin understands the creed to mean, by Christ’s descent into hell, the torments of spiritual death, which He suffered in dying, not after. His idea is, that the creed meant simply to asseverate, by the words, ‘descent into hell,’ the fact that Christ actually tasted the pangs of spiritual death, in addition to bodily, and in the same sense endured hell-torments for sinner, so far as they can be felt without sin. Calvin expressly says that the whole of that torment was tasted before the Redeemer’s soul left the body.” (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 546)

Of course the teaching of the Larger Catechism is important to us as it makes an allusion to the Apostles Creed and the expression “descended into hell”. Notice:

“Question 49: How did Christ humble himself in his death?
“Answer: Christ humbled himself in his death, in that having been betrayed by Judas, forsaken by his disciples, scorned and rejected by the world,condemned by Pilate, and tormented by his persecutors; having also conflicted with the terrors of death, and the powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of God's wrath, he laid down his life an offering for sin, enduring the painful, shameful, and cursed death of the cross.

“Question 50: Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?
“Answer: Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell.”
For the framers of the catechism, “descended into hell” [they are obviously alluding to the Apostles Creed] means the same as continuing “under the power of death till the third day”, meaning, it is the same as remaining dead and buried until the third day.

I do not believe that is what they meant to teach who added this phrase about 600 A.D. They a meant to teach he went down to the place of the damned and suffered the damnaton of hell, as though that gave worth to his suffering.
However, what does give worth to the suffering of Christ? The catechism brilliantly answers that questons:

“Question 38: Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession; and to satisfy God's justice, procure his favor, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.”

What gives infinite worth to his suffering is his divinity. He suffered as God and man. Amazing! That is enough for me.

In summary, when we call upon God’s people to recite the creed, in effect, we are saying to them, “If you are a Christian this is what you must believe.” How can we possibly expect them to confess what is so equivocal an expression, frought with so many interpretations. I, for one, cannot impose this on God’s people with a clear conscience. I cannot allow anyone to force me to do this.

I believe it is simpler and does no violence to our faith to omit the expression, “and he descended into hell.”

The Unity of the Church: An Application of John 17:20-23

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church adopted a very clear and biblical statement on the unity of the church, entitled: Biblical Principles of Church Unity. Section III, Ecclesiastical Union presents a lucid mandate for the organic union of churches. Paragraphs two and three are cited:
“As we take account of the diversity that exists between denominations arising from differences of ethnic identity, cultural background, and historical circumstance the most conclusive evidence derived from Scripture is required to support the position that the obliteration of denominational separateness is an obligation resting upon these Churches of Christ. The differences that exist often manifest the diversity which the church of Christ ought to exemplify and make for the enrichment of the church's total witness. If ecclesiastical union impairs this diversity, then it may be achieved at too great an expense and tends to an impoverishment inconsistent with the witness to Christ which the church must bear. Though the diversity which manifests itself in differentiating historical development might appear to make ecclesiastical union inadvisable or even perilous in certain cases, yet the biblical evidence in support of union is so plain that any argument to the contrary, however plausible, must be false.”

“Obliteration of denominational separateness” is strong language and reflects deeply felt convictions. The statement on ecclesiastical union not only serve as kind of mission statement and biblical philosophy for the Committee on Interchurch Relations – a guideline by which they operate – it serves that purpose for all the church officers and members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It is there to instruct us all. Since the idea of denominations is decried – an almost necessary evil – it is difficult to have a loyalty to a particular denomination. One’s loyalty is to Christ and, in an appropriate way, to the church that is to become one (the Church Future for which we are striving). In the Gospel of John, Chapter 17:20-23, Jesus prayed for oneness of the church, a unity that would be visible to the world. Believers may follow his prayer as a example, that by the grace of God we “all may be one. . . that the world may believe” (John 17:21 TNIV). Our prayer is our Spirit inspired dream. In agreement with this prayer, my prayer is that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church will cease to exist as a denomination. Even as I pray that one day there will no longer be a Presbyterian Church in America, an ARPC, a BPC, an RPCNA, . . .the list goes on (there is not enough room here to enlarge these abbreviations). My prayer is that all of those denominations (with others) will become a new church, a united church that continues to study unity and perseveres in working toward even greater unity in the church. The question for unity is not, “What can we agree on that we may be one?” The question is, “What must we believe, agree upon, that we may be one?” Not, “What is the lowest common denominator?” but “What creed is essential to unity? What creed does Jesus want for us all?” History, traditionalism, denominational jingoism and our own obsession to determine even more distinctive beliefs can blind us to the answers. The question does not have to be asked with reference to the denominations listed above. They already embrace the same definitive creed – the Westminster Confession of Faith. Unity seems to be lacking only because of one thing – the will.
Does the Word of God direct us to strive for one organic church? For that discussion, the Book of Acts – and in particular Chapters 15 and 16 – would be a good source. Clearly, the primitive church was one church organizationally. Its organizational unity was assumed. Anything else was inconceivable. The organizational unity of the church is Presbyterian; i.e., our Presbyterianism means to teach that Christ intended one unified church. The idea of accepting denominations is very recent, historically. The Reformers did not see themselves as initiating the great era of denominations. The purpose for the assembling of the “divines” of Great Britain to Westminster Abbey in 1643 was not to form a new denomination but to determine one faith and one church for all of Great Britain. That was the intent of the Solemn League and Covenant.

The immediate question in a smaller frame for us concerns God’s will for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What is the OPC – on any level – doing to express the unity of Christ’s church and to work toward its greater unity – the “obliteration of denominations”? What is the testimony of the OPC by remaining a separate denomination of approximately 20,000 communicants (19,965 communicants in 2005)? What does it mean that the OPC remains separate from another denomination that has the same heritage, the same form of government, the same Confession of Faith, the same hymnal and the same educational resources?

The most important question is: What do the Scriptures teach about the unity of the church? Perhaps the early church had it wrong. Perhaps Jesus never intended the organizational unity of the church.

The “oneness” of believers is taught throughout Scripture. It is clearly taught in 1 Corinthian Chapters 12 and in Ephesians Chapter 2. Ephesians is more to the point because “in Christ” the Gentiles are now one church with the Jews. However, the “oneness” of believers finds its clearest and most passionate expression in the prayer of our Lord the night he was betrayed. We find his sublime prayer for the “oneness’ of believers recorded by John the Apostle in John 17:20-24. To say that Jesus was praying for the organizational unity of the church would be eisegetical. However, the pursuit of the organizational unity of congregations and the move away from denominationalism is certainly one of the applications.

Jesus first prayed for the Apostles, “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:11b TNIV). Jesus prayed that the leaders of the church would remain as one. It was not his will for the church to divide into equally beloved and faithful factions that where “one” in spirit but not in practice. The Apostle Paul criticized that kind of factionalism arising among the Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:21-22).

Jesus then prayed for those who would believe on him through the message. He made the same prayer for all believers to follow in all ages: “...that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21 NIV).

Certainly the future oneness of the Gentiles and the Jews was in the mind of the Savior. William Hendrikson makes this point. This oneness of the Gentiles and the Jews appears as the major purpose and theme of Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. “But,” writes Hendrikson, “. . .it is not exactly what is meant by the present passage.”

The oneness of believers is understood in three ways:

First, it is “oneness” that is spiritual and expresses itself in love. It is rooted in the unity each believer has with the Father and the Son through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Believers are spiritual united to Jesus Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. Because believers are united to Jesus through the Spirit they are united with every other believer. That “oneness’ – that Spiritual “unity” – is demonstrated by our love for one another. This is consistent with the theme of love found John’s Gospel. Jesus told the disciples, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" NIV (John 13:35 NIV). Hendrikson’s comment on this point is very significant:

“God is love. What is true with respect to each divine attribute holds also with respect to love: it constitutes the very essence of God (1 John 4:8). Now it is exactly in loving one another that the oneness of all believers comes to expression (cf. 13:34; 15:12, 17). Hence, we now understand how Jesus can say ‘. . .that they may all be one, even as thou, O Father (art) in me, and I (am) in thee.”

The testimony of the mutual love and oneness of believers toward each other is crucial to winning those “outside” (the elect whom the Father is drawing to the Son). The testimony of “oneness” is very important and it was the very thing for which Jesus prayed. We should be asking ourselves, “How are we being witnesses to that “oneness”. However, Hendrikson never makes an application to the organizational unity of the church. For him, unity remains in the realm of the invisible body of Christ and the love true believers show to one another.

Jesus continued in his prayer,

“The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17:22-23 ESV).
What is this glory that Jesus gives to believers since it is the glory the Father gave to the Son?
“By ‘the glory which thou hast given me’ Jesus refers to the fact that the Father manifested himself in the Son (‘thou in me,’ verse 21). By ‘I have given them’ he means that he (i.e., Jesus) manifested himself in the lives of believers…Believers become partakers of Christ, and in that sense, of the divine nature. . .The glory which Jesus gives to believers means that they have become one plant with him. . .”
The glory of the Father and the Son is manifested in the faith and obedience of believers and in this context their obedience is manifested in their love and unity. As Rodney Whitacre notes: “Oneness can only come through being born from above,…” Believers are one by virtue of the their new birth and being united to Jesus in his death, burial and resurrection. At this level, Jesus’ prayer is answered.
Second, “oneness” or unity is evidenced by one message – logos. The elect come to believe the message of the Apostles, the Word Jesus gave them to preach and teach – the gospel. All Christian unity must agree with and support the core truth of God’s Word in the gospel. William Hendrikson and Bruce Milne are careful to point out that unity is never at the expense of truth. However, they fail to explain that for any unity, no two believers can absolutely agree on everything each one believes to be true from God’s Word. In that sense, demonstrable unity must always be at the expense of some truths – or at the expense of some of those things each one believes to be true. Believers, leaders and congregations must determine those essential truths that comprise the doctrinal basis of unity. It is possible to be faithful to a truth from Scripture you believe without insisting on its adherence by all for the basis of unity.
This is where we stumble upon what might be called the Reformed problem of handling truth. By truth is meant the truth of Scripture. What do the Scriptures teach? Certainly, not everything I firmly believe to be the truth of Scripture must be the basis of my unity with every other believer or even the basis for church union. Believers and church leaders must sit down with each other and together determine those truths that must be embraced by all to achieve the unity of the church; i.e., to form one church. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a rather complete statement of Biblical truth, intended as the basis for church union; however, Presbyterian churches will not unite on the basis of it because they remain divided by too many other distinctive teachings. While organic union is praised opening, the party spirit often prevails in more private settings.

Third, the “oneness” manifests itself in the organic union of the church. Some, perhaps many, would not go this far. Whitacre is disappointing here and posits that the oneness for which Jesus prayed is spiritual and manifests in the love and unity believers show to one another. He individualizes the burden; it is not corporate. The “complete” unity for which Jesus prayed will not be realized until glory – it “looks beyond this life to heaven (v. 24). However, Whitacre does admit, “The actual lack of unity among Christians throughout history, both between groups of Christians and within groups, tempts a believer to despair and holds Christ up to contempt by the world.” Yet he draws back from making any further applications to the question in point: Did Jesus pray that believers will manifest a more visible and organic oneness or unity, to the end “...that the world will know that you sent me [Jesus]...”?

Jesus prayed that his people would be one so that the “world may believe (v. 21) and that the “world will know that you sent me” (v. 23). Believing and knowing indicate saving faith and saving knowledge. Jesus prayed for the church’s witness – and not only the witness of born again believers individually – to the end that his elect in the world would be drawn to him through this witness. This does not negate the preaching of the gospel as the means by which the elect are brought to Christ; however, we recognize from Jesus’ prayer that God uses the faithful witness of believers and the church as a witness to the truth and power of the gospel. This is what Paul meant when he wrote to the Corinthians that they were his letter of recommendation:
“You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” 2 Cor. 3:2,3 NIV).
Hendrikson recognized this application:

“When believers are united in the faith and present a common front to the world, they exert power and influence. When they are torn asunder by strife and dissension, the world (ethical sense: mankind in need of salvation) will not know what to make of them, nor how to interpret their so-called “testimonies.”

Bruce Milne makes some very good applications to the need for unity in the local church. He states, “Our churches are to be ‘love centers’ where relationships between members are a persuasive reflection of the mutually supportive, utterly loyal and eternally accepting love of the Father and the Son.” More to the point, he writes further:

“Beyond the local church, also, the challenge is unavoidable. Unity at the expense of truth is not supported by this passage. . .It is impossible to believe, however, that the present fragmentation of the Protestant churches (on a recent computation the global denomination total was over twenty-two thousand!) is tolerable in the light of Jesus’ prayer.”

Jesus’ prayer is that believers will be “brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them [believers] even as you have loved me” (v. 23 NIV).
“That they may have been brought completely into oneness”. In commenting further on the end for which Jesus prayed for the complete oneness of believers, Lenski gives this translation:

“. . .in order that the world may realize () that thou didst commission me and didst love them even as thou didst love me.”

And he comments:

“’May realize’ is substantially the same as ‘may believe’ in the parallel clause in v. 21. Both verbs are aorist and signify actual realizing, actual believing. . .By beholding the oneness of believers as this manifests itself especially in the united confession and proclamation of the Word (these two by both lip and life), the world is to come to an inner realization of the significance of this oneness. To be sure, a saving realization is referred to, one that induces faith. . .”

John Frame’s application of Jesus’ prayer in verse 23 is fitting:

“One important reason why Jesus wants his church to be one is that it will thereby be a more effective witness to the unbelieving world. Disunity obviously raises questions about the divine origin of the church. People naturally ask, ‘If the gospel is a divine revelation, why are there so many disagreements as to what it means? If Jesus is the Son of God, the Lord of love, why don’t his people love one another more? Why all the backbiting, insulting, contending?’ Unbelievers have often used the church’s divisions to excuse their unbelief. I don’t, of course, accept the validity of that excuse; but I very much regret the necessity of having to explain why the church is ‘God’s people’ even though it is so miserably divided.”

We in the reformed faith do not hesitate to say that other forms of disobedience injure our testimony and “cause the heathen to blaspheme” but we do not want to recognize our disunity (our fragmentation into little denominations and our ceaseless criticism of other believers and churches) as sin and a poor witness to the world. If we, as believers, decry and even despair of our disunity because it is so obvious to us, how much more obvious is it to the world? What is our testimony? What is our spiritual legacy? We must bear witness to our “oneness” in Christ in every way we can.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church has a commendable heritage of defending the truth of God’s Word and promoting the Reformed Faith. There is a sense of pride in being Orthodox Presbyterian and in preserving it. The question arises, “How and why should all of that simply be surrendered? How can all of that for which the leaders of the OPC have labored and fought simply be abandoned.”

While I understand the sense of pride in a marvelous heritage and in so many things accomplished, nothing accomplished will ever be lost; it becomes part of a larger heritage and legacy of the whole church. Some day the OPC will join or merge with some other denomination. All those things achieved, all those Biblical insights fleshed out through study and debate will go with it. Once sound, Biblical truth is presented it never goes away. It defends itself because there will always be others who will take up the banner of truth. Truth never dies. It is the lesson of history. What truths of God’s Word ever died that were not soon thereafter restored? Should denominationalism be used to preserve distinctive doctrines that do not form the basis us Christian unity?

There is the natural and understandable difficulty to the whole undertaking of organic union. The details to be work out are more than I can imagine. Far easier it is to maintain the status quo and simply keep talking about union. . .some day. However, the question always returns: “What would God have us to do?” Which is the same as asking, “What would the Lord have us initiate?” If he gives us a burden to express the unity of the church then we should initiate it without bothering to ask why the other party has not.

There is in the minds of some the sense that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has constructed a theological and ecclesiastical fortress to preserve, defend, protect and advance certain unique, reformed “distinctives.” Within this mindset exists the idea that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is more “self-consciously reformed” than some other denominations. I say this because these words (“distinctives” and “self-consciously reformed”) keep popping up in the literature of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I hope this is not the basis for maintaining separate existence and identity. I hope there is not a kind fear of loosing something precious without anyone clearly understanding what it is. I believe holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith is distinctive enough to form the basis of unity. Beyond that there needs to be “wiggle room” for disagreements, different emphases and further Biblical insights without having to create or maintain a separate and small denomination.

The church of Jesus Christ is vast. The Reformed community is much, much larger than the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The orthodox Presbyterian community is much larger than the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Do 19,000 communicants really believe that the witness of Christ is better preserved by them? Do they really believe that the witness of Christ is more faithfully demonstrated by maintaining a separate, distinct witness? I don’t believe anyone really believes that, at least, not consciously. But that is how it can appear. If we find in Jesus’ prayer a mandate for pursuing ecclesiastical union, then we must pursue it. That mandate is clearly in our statement on Ecclesiastical Union.

Reaching Our Generation

What we should be attempting to do is to evangelize the community. We should not be doing our own separate, esoteric thing apart from the community. In evangelizing the community, we should be trying not only to get people to accept the Bible and say yes to Jesus. We should be seeking to fold them into the body of the church, the family of God, and lead them to follow Jesus with us. In doing so, we would be presenting to them the claims of Jesus from his Word with the expectation they will follow Jesus in the way we teach them.

But that is not what we are doing in the Reformed Churches, we are not presenting the claims of Christ in his Word, we are presenting claims from a period of European church history which we love to call the, "Reformed tradition." We are presenting a platform from what we consider the ideal period in the history of the church. It is considered the period of ultimate theological development. The 16th century reformation, not the Scriptures, become the touchstone of all subsequent reformation. We are saying to people, it is not only God's Word to which you must submit, it is with this historic ideal you must comply. People who are not intellectuals or antiquarians simply, and wisely, are not interested. They are more interested about what God says in his Word. Perhaps somewhere down the learning road some of them will become more interested in church history. For the present time, the whole Reformed presentation seems too abstruse. It demands they master many things more complicated than the Scriptures demand. And so they leave us after one or two visits and move onto the other church that will keep it simple, more relevant and more contempory. We are content to condemn them as being not "truly saved", too immature in their faith or being interested only in entertainment. There is a conceit in thinking, "If God was really drawing them, they would stay with us." There is an unspoken mind-set that we are fishing for quality conversions. There is a misguided pride in being an intellectual church. There is almost prideful resignation to being a church for the intellectual. It is tantamount to saying, "We are the people and the truth is with us." It never enters our minds to criticize ourselves and say, "Maybe the problem is with us. What are we doing wrong?"

Contemporaniety in music and in the message is the most effective way to communicate the gospel. Once again, we are too prone to pull the language of worship from some ideal period and place of the enshrined historic past.

Too much is expected of those we are initiating into the faith. Presenting the Five Points of Calvinism, is one thing, expecting them to embrace them and master them before moving on is another thing. It is placing a burden on them too heavy to bear. I know sincere, faithful believers in Christ who struggle for years with that particular theological formation. I know others who simply cannot accept them. If you show them a verse from Scripture -- for example, John 6:44 -- they receive it. However, they are unable to receive it as it was stated in the 17th century by Hollanders who were attempting to answer the Remonstrants. We forget that John Calvin didn't express those teachings in that way. Those teaching are found in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, but not in same paradigm and not even with that emphasis.

Worship in a Biblical and Relevant Manner

Worship is the act of honoring God as creator, provider and Savior; expressing our adoration and dependence upon him through praise and thanksgiving from our hearts, by words and through our obedience.

Worship is a personal and corporate act of love and devotion to God. Each believer worships the Lord personally each day and as part of a local congregation. In the Old Testament, worshipers congregated in the temple on the feast days. Later, they also gathered for worship in synagogues.

It is done in spirit. Worship is deeply spiritual and often expresses itself in our emotions. Worship is very heart-felt. Worship is also done in truth. It must be worshiping God with the correct, Biblical understanding of who he is. The principles of worship may be derived only from God’s Word.
Six usual parts of public worship are recognized in God’s Word:
1. The Bible will be read for all to hear and follow.
2. The message of the preacher will be the interpretation and application of God’s Word alone.
3. The minister will welcome the people in God’s name and dismiss them with his blessing.
4. The minister will lead the congregation in public prayer.
5. The congregation will sing songs of praise, thanksgiving, confession, offering and petition to the Lord.
6. The tithes and gifts will be received as the offerings of thanksgiving from the Lord’s people.

Worship is directed to God alone and – when in the assembly – it is also done in a way that is edifying to all the worshipers. Therefore worship is both vertical (to God) and horizontal (edifying to the worshiper).[1] Because corporate worship is also horizontal, it must also be relevant to all the worshipers.

A good example of the need for relevance is found in 1 Corinthians 14:23-25 --
"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"

Tongues are a spiritual gift no longer.[2] Believers in the Corinthian church were abusing this gift (which may indicate that many of them were pretending the gift). If they were speaking in tongues in the worship service, and if an unbeliever entered, he would not be able to relate to what they were doing and would think they were crazy. The Apostle Paul vindicated the judgment of the unbeliever. He is justified in not being able to understand what was going on and what was being said.

The application for us is that even an unbeliever (seeker) walking into the worship service ought to be able to relate to and understand what is going on and what is being said. This is how people, untrained in the faith, may be converted. Language in worship that is too archaic or too intellectual should be avoided. All language in worship – in the message and in the singing – should be comprehensible and relevant.

The relevance of language, lyrics and music:
Strive to keep the pastor’s message and the lyrics understandable. Avoid archaic language with which people untrained in the church are unfamiliar. This is not “dumbing down;” this is avoiding tongues. Tunes can also be archaic and very strange-sounding to people unfamiliar with them. Historically, church music has always trailed changing styles in music.
[1] To edify means to build up. Vertical and horizontal worship, see John M. Frame, "Worship in Spirit and in Truth".
[2] Tongues. Literally languages. The charismatic gift to speak in another language unlearned. It is miraculously given by the Holy Spirit. This gift ceased with the early church. The church father’s testified to its disappearance. In 1 Corinthians 14:20-22, Paul wrote that tongues were intended as a sign for the Jews that Messiah has come.

Faith
What are some of the most important teachings of the Christian Faith?

1. God is the almighty creator. He is full of grace, mercy, peace and truth. He is completely content. God is love and he will save his people from their sins. God is light and he will guide his people in the truth. He exists in three persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These three persons of God are equal in power and glory – three persons in one God.

2. He created everything by the power of his Word. He created us in his spiritual and intellectual likeness and gave us authority over creation to take care of it for human welfare. Adam and Eve were the original pair of human beings. All human beings have descended from them.

3. Adam and Eve were created holy and righteous with free wills. They could obey or disobey God. They sinned disobeyed God when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They alienated themselves from him and became sinful and miserable. God judged them. Their punishment was death. All of us have inherited their guilt and sinful natures; consequently, we are all sinners.

4. Because God is holy and just he must judge and condemn those who break his holy and just laws. His judgment is eternal exclusion from himself and torment in that place Jesus called Gehenna (the rubbish heap outside the walls of Jerusalem, hell).

5. In his love and compassion for us, God revealed to Adam his covenant to save us from our sins. This covenant is revealed in his holy Word, the Bible. All the books contained in the Bible were written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit so that their words are really God’s Words. God’s plan and promise was to send his Son to obey the law for us and then to die for our sins.

6. The eternal Son of God is that same Jesus Christ who was born of the virgin Mary by the miracle of the Holy Spirit. He lived a sinless life, taught the truth of God’s covenant, healed the sick and raised the dead. After three years of ministry, those who hated him crucified him to death. On the cross he suffered the punishment we deserve. Because he died for us, we are released from judgment and condemnation. He rose from the dead on the third day and when he returns he will raise us from the dead and gather us to himself and the Father. In this way we will always be with our loving Lord.

7. To be accepted by God through Jesus, we must repent of our sins, believe in him as our Savior and follow him as our master. We cannot believe by our own strength. He enables us to believe and repent by the power of the Holy Spirit. He will give us his Holy Spirit if we humbly ask him in prayer.

8. God does not want his people to live in isolation from each other. His people are the holy assembly, the church, the collective witness. Jesus commands his people to join in fellowship for instruction in the faith, worship and works of service. We do this for his glory and to be his witnesses on earth.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church: Where Shall We Go?

What I am going to say may be different from what you expect. Let me share a little about my background so you understand from where I am coming.

I have been a pastor in the OPC for twenty-one years. I led my first congregation (Pilgrim Presbyterian in Metamora, MI) into the OPC in 1985. Prior to 1985, Pilgrim was a Congregational church for 107 years. My personal acquaintance with the OPC was through the Presbytery of the Midwest. My intellectual acquaintence with the OPC began shortly after my conversion in 1971 at Shelton College, a small Christian school now defunct. Shelton was under the control of Dr. Carl McIntire, a leading minister in the Bible Presbyterian Church and the director of the "The Christian Beacon", Inc. Yes, it was a newspaper but it was also much, much more. Who can say for sure. The Twentieth Century Reformation Movement was somehow connected to it. All of the hotels and B&Bs were part of the Christian Beacon, Inc.

McIntire and the Bible Presbyterian ministers teaching at the college, taught us that J. Gresham Machen was the original inspiration behind the BPC and, by subtle inference, the founder of the fundamentalist Twentieth Century Reformation Movement. The Christian Beacon, Shelton College, Faith Seminary and everything appended were the fruit of what that great man started. They owned Machen as their own. However, the truth can never be blurred for long. With many others I discovered a more accurate picture of reality. Before I entered Faith Theological Seminary in 1974, I was disillusioned with everything McIntire-related. I became a rebel in the "movement". On the shores of the Atlantic, newly married, working as a painter on the "movement's" crumbling resort buildings in Cape May, NJ, I wrote an essay on reformation (since discarded) in which I worked through my thoughts and feelings on the "reformation movement". It was not a reformation -- it was more like a reaction. My wife, Josephine, and my friends thought I was loosing my faith altogether because I was questioning the great leader -- Carl McIntire.

To fast forward, I lasted at Faith for only one year. With other rebels, I slipped over to Westminster Seminary to hear a lecture by Paul Woolley on the separation of the Bible Presbyterian Church from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I also read "The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod", by George P. Hutchinson. My eyes at last were opened and I became a great admirer of everything OPC and Westminister Seminary. However, in the course of events and a few years later, I became the pastor of Pilgrim Reformed Congregational Church in Metamora, Michigan.

The Othodox Presbyterian Church is a denomination whose elders and congregations reflect the highest theological, ethical and intellectual stardards of our times. I believe this is also true of other orthodox presbyterian and reformed denominations today. Having attended many presbytery meetings in several presbyteries and having been a commissioner to three general assemblies, I have witnessed brotherly love, fairness, a conscience to do what is right and a passion to know and do God's will as revealed in his Word.

Those things must be said; however, no believer, session, congregation, presbytery or synod is without fault and the need to see its faults. We are all subject to blind spots and, as our Lord taught us, we like to indicate the splinter in our brother's eye while we ignore the beam in our own. There is a place, however, for pointing out these splinters to one another in the spirit of love while remaining mindful of our own, many short comings.

In seeking a true perception of things, I have challenged myself to consider whether the OPC changed since I became a part of it or whether I have changed. I believe both things are true. People change and so do institutions like the church. The church changes because believers pass on to be with Lord, taking with them their unique perspectives, perceptions and experiences. New believers arise to take the place of the old, bringing with them their new understandings and orientations. This is what makes the church dynamic.

From the time I became acquainted with the OPC I perceived it as a broadly reformed and presbyterian church, acknowledging the best of all reformed traditions. I also saw the church as evangelical and intellectual. I recall several things going on when I first began attending presbytery as an observer: the question of joining and receiving into the PCA was in progress, many churches were using James D. Kennedy's "Evangelism Explosion" program and Home Missions was following a more relevant and pragmatic approach to planting new congregations.

Joining and receiving failed. Unfortunately, little effort, or weak effort, has been made to revive organic union with our sister church. I hear teaching elders say things they would never publish -- that union will "never happen," insinuations that the PCA is not as consistently reformed, etc. Usually, the criticism focuses on situations within congregations. I also hear concern that becoming part of the PCA would weaken the "distinctive reformed witness of the OPC." I detect in this an emerging pride and conceit. Should one be proud that he has come to know the Lord? Should one be proud that he is a Calvinist and not an Arminian? Should a denomination be proud that it is not like other denominations who are in some ways "weaker and compromised with the modern culture"? The danger is exclusivity and a warped celebration of ecclesiastical diminution as an indication of true peity in the midst of an evil world and a compromised church. Becoming marginal is somehow a badge of God's favor.

In "Fighting the Good Fight", by D. G. Hart and John Muether, the authors lament the weak growth of the OPC (and I think in 2006 a decline in membership will be noticed), with these words: "Whatever the reason, America has proven to be rocky soil for the OPC." Upon reading these words, I wondered if the OPC has not made itself rocky soil for so many of the people the Lord is drawing to himself. The OPC seems to be weak in knowing how to attract people. Has it become expert in repulsing them?

The church of Jesus Christ is growing and the OPC is not part of it. I am encouraged that Evangelism Explosion is no longer used. The program has good content but the method is more like something concocted by a pushy salesman. There is nothing in it of a true reformed evangelism coupled with winning people to the Lord by building relationships of love and trust. However, I fear that in 1987, the General Assembly may have "thrown out the baby with the bath water." There is some justification for the strong criticisms of Lewis Ruff's philosophy on church planting. Many believe he was "commercializing" the church. While there is some truth to this, consider that most churches, even OP churches, use some degree of commercialism. It's called advertising. Most churches think of ways to attract people to visit their worship services. Isn't that a good place for people to hear the gospel? Since Lewis Ruff resigned in 1987, many have been more zealous about making new converts more "self-consiously" reformed than making them followers of Christ. Jesus did not say, "Go into all the world and make sure that people become 'self-consiously' reformed right away and appreciate all the distinctives of the OPC." He commands us to "Go and make disciples." Church planters write about their efforts to make their reformed witness known in the community. The community does not even know what is reformed. Church planters should make very clear their witness to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Promote Christ first. Show him in clear, unadorned Biblical language. To let the community see Jesus Christ first is the most reformed thing one can do.

I love the reformed faith. It reflects the teachings of Scripture and gives all the glory to God. But learning it takes time. The expressions of the reformed faith emerged in a 16th the 17th century context. It is a context that most people don't understand. It takes a lot of time for people to wrap their minds around that context. The Westminister Confession of Faith was written in complex 17th century prose, difficult for people to read today. I remember reading an article by Ross Graham published in New Horizons in which he wrote that church planters when preaching should refer often to the Westminster standards. I don't think so. People will only be confused. The people whom the Lord is drawing to himself want to hear the Word of God. They respond well to it. Giving them the Confession of Faith too early sends the message that the words of men are somehow as important as the Word of God. The church planter should infrequently, if ever, refer to the secondary standards in the message. Seekers and new converts want to see that Jesus and the Word are preeminent. Scriptural truths packaged in old rhetorical formats must be carefully taught in a setting where misunderstandings can be carefully addressed. At Rockford Springs, we offer a continuous class on the Shorter Catechism using G.I. Williamson's book. New members are refered to that class for further study. This process has worked very well.

I believe that Orthodox Presbyterian congregations do not have to be small. I believe many Orthodox Presbyterians want them to be small so they can protect all of the "distinctives." My concern is that the church can become so distinctive that it seals its own fate to extinction.

Is fine tuning theology a healthy process? I suppose this is best evaluated by the following question -- "And the practical benefit of this fine tuning for the people of God is?" The criticism I often hear from believers is that the OPC is too cerebral. The OPC, thanks to Westminister Seminary, is blessed with scholars and intellectuals. Where these scholars are, intellectually, is far, far beyond the average Christian, so far that they are beyond the comprehension of most others.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is simple. I believe in keeping it as simple and as clear as Jesus intented it to be. While some say this is "dumbing down," I call it speaking in a "known tongue" so that those seekers who enter our worship service will not think I am "out of my mind" or living in an ivory tower. (Check out 1 Corinthians 14:23. Let's beware of speaking in "reformed tongues.")

I believe the healthiest thing for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is to study how it can become broader rather than how it can become even more distinct. Church planters should be introduced to the writings of men like Gary MnIntosh, George G. Hunter III and Merton P. Strommen (authors who have written informed and intelligent works on church growth and church management). I believe the OPC should actively pursue organic union with other orthodox presbyterian denominations. The "distinctives" forged in the OPC will never go away even if the OPC dissolves into another church. Those distinctives will always remain a part of the discussion of the church that is continually reforming itself. My hope is that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church will come to an end as we know it, that it will dissolve into a larger presbyterian witness in which its dross will be consumed and its gold refined. The truth in all its beauty can never be extinguished.