Pages

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

An ecclesial conundrum


Ed Dingess recently posted a critique of Russell Moore's position on the Zimmerman verdict:


But this generates a dilemma.  On the one hand, Dingess is a critic of Abolish Human Abortion. Dingess is an ally of Frank Turk in his opposition to AHA. They seem to share the same (or similar (ecclesiology). They love to quote Heb 13:17 (which they don't bother to contextualize). 

On the other hand, Moore is a Baptist elder. An ordained Baptist minister who's pastored several SBC churches. 

Suppose a member of AHA was also a member of Highview Baptist Church (which Moore pastored). Suppose the AHA member had a blog in which he did a post supporting the Zimmerman verdict. Suppose Pastor Moore told him to retract it because the post conflicted with Moore's view of the verdict. What should he do? On the one hand, Dingess thinks laymen ought to be in submission to their elders. On the other hand, Dingess is a public critic of Moore's position on this issue. Likewise, what does Turk think the layman ought to do in that hypothetical situation?

14 comments:

  1. This is a false dilemma. Nowhere have I advocated that we must always agree with our elders on every point in order to "submit" to their authority. In addition, I do not think godly elders would think that either. A plurality of elders protects from such potential abuse. Elders understand the limits of their authority. That being said, if the elders (session) requested I not blog until I had additional training so as to protect me from publishing error, which is destructive to my soul and the church, I am obligated to submit. There is a remarkable difference between small differences of opinion regarding an event like the Martin-Zimmerman case, and engaging in public ministry that employs methods and teachings that publicly stand to hurt the individual and the Christian community. Elders are in place to defend against that very thing. There is no dilemma here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i) Is Ed admitting that in case of conflict, a layman should trust his own judgment rather than the judgment of his pastor?

      ii) Is Ed saying a layman should submit to the demands of his pastor and/or elders even if their demands are admittedly mistaken? Or is he conceding that there is no such obligation?

      Delete
    2. Ed Dingess

      "if the elders (session) requested I not blog until I had additional training so as to protect me from publishing error..."

      Russell Moore is highly trained, yet Ed doesn't think that protected him from publishing error.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Apples and oranges Steve. No elder worth his salt thinks his judgment impeccable. This is why God gives us a plurality of elders. Godly elders know the difference between differences of opinion over issues like Zimmerman and insubordinate men who set up parachurch ministries against their elder’s direction and leave when asked to repent. My issue with Russell Moore's commentary is that he presumed to judge George Zimmerman's motives, which requires knowledge of what is in Zimmerman's heart. This, no man should do. Elders are not above criticism and correction. In addition, no one said that submission = agreement. I may disagree with my elders on a particular course of action but still submit to them. What if a young man's elders require him to enter seminary before he is eligible for ordination. Is the young man within his right to reject his godly leaders on such matters? Based on your reasoning, he appears to be well within his right. I do not agree.

      To your second point, elders may require additional training in order to protect me from error but this is no guarantee that I will not err along the way. You know this Steve and so does any neutral person reading the comments.

      If I were to follow your logic, no one would need to submit to any session ever so long as they disagreed with the session's advice. They could merely put their own spin on Scripture and do as they please. And when the session steps in to help, they could say "up your nose" and within their right. Once again, I disagree.

      Your group in here is like Washington DC, by the way. The democrats ALWAYS stick up for their pals, regardless of how bad the argument is and so it is with the most of the conservatives. It seems the same in here. The comments below are so outrageous and incoherent that they don't merit a response.

      I would prefer that you do a better job of representing my position in the future if you are going to criticize it. I am not above being corrected. I change my mind about issues from time to time so long as it can be demonstrated from Scripture that my view is in error. God graciously uses all sorts of mechanisms to bring us into a deeper knowledge of His truth so that we may grow in our sanctification and in our love for one another. If we aren't doing those things, well then, our conversations are nothing more than intellectual one-upmanship.

      Delete
    5. Ed's argument bristles with problems:

      i) He assumes that God gave us a plurality of elders as a system of checks and balances. But where does Scripture give that rationale?

      ii) The NT bears witness to several churches in doctrinal crisis. Where were the elders? Were they in crisis because there were no elders? If so, then eldership is not a prerequisite for a church. Or were they in crisis despite the elders? If so, then eldership was inadequate to prevent or resolve the crisis. That required outside intervention. It's unclear how either scenario supports Ed's position.

      iii) Ed is overlooking self-selection bias. In the nature of the case, denominations select for elders who share the viewpoint of the denomination. So a plurality of elders doesn't render it certain or even probable that doctrinal error is avoided. Take Ed. He's Baptist, not Lutheran. He's premil, not amil. He's YEC, not OEC. Clearly, though, it's easy to come up with sessions or even entire denominations whose views on some issues Ed considers erroneous.

      iv) Given Ed's strictures, it's unclear if he thinks a layman would ever be justified in changing his theology. How would a cradle Lutheran layman ever be warranted in becoming a Baptist? Wouldn't that be insubordinate to the counsel of his pastor and elders?

      v) Ed chronically divorces authority from true. But submission to error is insubordinate to God, who is the touchstone of truth.

      Delete
    6. Ed Dingess

      "Apples and oranges Steve."

      Meaning apple standards for Ed, but orange standards for his opponents. Ed needs to learn that what's applesauce for the goose is applesauce for the gander.

      Delete
    7. 1) I never used the expression "checks and balances." I refer the readers to Acts 20 and the Ephesian commission.

      2) Of course new Churches with new elders under the new covenant are going to struggle with doctrinal issues. They don't even have a NT document yet to provide the standards and guardrails upon which to operate.

      3) This point is irrelevant. Submission does not equal agreement. I submitted to PCA elders for several years even though I did not entirely agree with PCA's theological grid.

      4) I do not advocate blind submission. I have left Churches for sound reasons. But that decision was always gut-wrenching. Elders derive their authority from Scripture. Abandon basics of the faith, and elders decommission themselves as qualified leaders. See Matthew's gospel 18 on binding and loosing.

      5) I reject this characterization. Given Steve's position, authority collapses. I have yet to see a positive biblical statement from him on the biblical authority of the local church and a Christian's duty to submit to their elders as commanded in Hebrews 13:17. "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you."

      Steve seems to be guilty of the same thing that most American Christians are guilty of: emphasizing the radical autonomy of the individual to the utter neglect of the Christian group. I see no way of mimicking the the biblical model of oneness in the body with such a high view of the individual's "rights" to reject their elders almost on a whim.

      Delete
    8. Ed Dingess

      "My issue with Russell Moore's commentary is that he presumed to judge George Zimmerman's motives, which requires knowledge of what is in Zimmerman's heart. This, no man should do."

      To the contrary, jurors must often decide the mental state of the accused at the time of the alleged crime. Did he act with criminal intent (e.g. premeditation, malice aforethought)? So Ed's principle is absurd.

      Delete
    9. Ed Dingess

      "1) I never used the expression 'checks and balances.'"

      I didn't say he used that expression. However, he said: "No elder worth his salt thinks his judgment impeccable. This is why God gives us a plurality of elders."

      What's the point of that claim unless he's suggesting that a plurality of elders acts as a check on the judgement of an individual elder?

      "I refer the readers to Acts 20 and the Ephesian commission."

      That appeal is too vague to prove anything. What's the point?

      "Of course new Churches with new elders under the new covenant are going to struggle with doctrinal issues. They don't even have a NT document yet to provide the standards and guardrails upon which to operate."

      Actually, they could run their questions directly by an apostle. Pretty convenient.

      "This point is irrelevant. Submission does not equal agreement."

      Does Ed think there's an obligation to submit to error?

      "I have left Churches for sound reasons."

      Why isn't that insubordinate? Rebellious? What if his elders didn't give him permission to leave? Then what?

      "Elders derive their authority from Scripture. Abandon basics of the faith, and elders decommission themselves as qualified leaders. See Matthew's gospel 18 on binding and loosing."

      A telling example of Ed's spooftexting:

      i) To begin with, Mt 18 says nothing about elders or church officers, in distinction to the laity. Ed is importing that into the text out of thin air.

      ii) Mt 18 deals with actual sin, not mere accusation. Ed keeps divorcing authority from truth. Where does Mt 18 say the church has the authority to bind and loose even if the accused is actually innocent?

      "I reject this characterization. Given Steve's position, authority collapses."

      Ed is the flip side of Bryan Cross.

      "I have yet to see a positive biblical statement from him on the biblical authority of the local church and a Christian's duty to submit to their elders…"

      Actually, I'm exposing internal contradictions in Ed's position. If a layman must submit to his elders, even if he disagrees, then how could a Lutheran layman ever become a practicing Baptist unless his elders gave him permission to change churches?

      "…as commanded in Hebrews 13:17."

      Unlike Ed, the author of Hebrews doesn't decouple authority from truth. To the contrary Heb 13:17 comes at the tail-end of a very lengthy argument to prove the author's position and disprove the opposing position. Throughout his letter, the author appeals to the authority of Scripture, reasoning from Scripture, to establish his position. He never suggested that his readers should submit to their elders even if their elders are wrong. His whole letter is about correcting doctrinal error.

      "Steve seems to be guilty of the same thing that most American Christians are guilty of: emphasizing the radical autonomy of the individual to the utter neglect of the Christian group."

      Ed absolutizes autonomous authority, by severing authority from truth.

      "I see no way of mimicking the the biblical model of oneness in the body…"

      Ed rejects the oneness of the body by bifurcating the church into elders and laymen.

      "…with such a high view of the individual's 'rights' to reject their elders almost on a whim."

      Ed severs rights from what is right.

      Delete
  2. That being said, if the elders (session) requested I not blog until I had additional training so as to protect me from publishing error, which is destructive to my soul and the church, I am obligated to submit.

    So let's just modify Steve's scenario where Pastor Moore demands the member of AHA and his church retract his article because it conflicts with his view of the verdict because he slaps on the label of "publishing error that's destructive to your soul and the church". What does he do now? Is he obligated to submit even though, according to you, Pastor Moore is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the one hand, Dingess says:
    Nowhere have I advocated that we must always agree with our elders on every point in order to "submit" to their authority.

    On the other, he says:
    if the elders (session) requested I not blog until I had additional training so as to protect me from publishing error, which is destructive to my soul and the church, I am obligated to submit.

    I guess I should stop being surprised that obvious things don't matter to Dingess.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Did Martin Luther submit to his church elders?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Isn't the ERLC a parachurch ministry?

    ReplyDelete