It’s About Time

Today we sent WeiChee and family off to the field of Irian (West Papua). It is a joyful/sad occasion. Sad because our friends are leaving us for the Lord’s work; joyful because they are obeying God’s leading for their lives and we as a church were part of that journey; that process. We were obedient in sending them off to the Lord’s field.

Many of us arrived at the Budget Terminal about 2hrs prior to departure time. It was a casual and light occasion at that time. Kids ran around oblivious to the heavyheartedness of adults. Still it was fun watching them expend energy in the departure hall. Adults meanwhile, ‘loiter’ around in small groups having chit-chats. Some regular visitors turned up: MeiLeng, Angelia, as well as Jeff and Patricia. Stephanie came too.

When 16:00 hrs came, I asked Daniel to gather the folks for group picture. It was quite a breeze since the folks knew what they were supposed to do. Then came the difficult moment – to pray for the missionary family on behalf of the church. Difficult only because one can sense the sadness around.

Tears flowed as I prayed for the Lam family prior to their moving off to Departure gate. It was understandable. Inevitable I might add. The people of NTBC love them dearly. That is wonderful. I do wonder if it’s our turn, will they likewise?

As a side note, I was pleasantly surprised to see TzeCheh (aka Tracy) and Jasmine. Both are married with kids in tow. Both whom I have not seen since 1993 when we left SBBC. Frankly I missed them much though not expressed. I missed their ever positive outlook. The life of the party so to speak, in a positive manner. I missed their fervor. Sadly they are not attending church since the fiasco in ’93. only thing to do is to pray that the Lord will prompt their hearts to yearn for worship and communion with God and His saints.

Well, here are my thoughts regarding expansion of NBBC from college to Univ settings.  My reservation lies in the area of identity. When a college calls itself a Baptist college, it immediately specify what it stands for (logically speaking). I’m not saying Northland is ditching its distinctive (I think one of the men in the Northland video interviews mention something in passing though not in direct reference to my point of concern that identity will not be lost).  Personally I’d like to see it retain its Baptist identity despite changes.  Undoubtedly, these men have spent much time musing and discussing the pros and cons of certain decisions and these aren’t easy decisions to make.  Dr Ol’ has often said that the choices also determines the consequences or destination.

Another area of interest rather than concern is that of accreditation. As a college it has received accreditation status but this new aspect?

Anyway, I’ll be writing to Kevin Priest or Sam Horn about these and see what they will say. It’s still early days yet and I’m sure their email inboxes  have been stuffed with queries (not to mention accusations etc)!  It’d wouldn’t be prudent to jump to conclusion but be open-minded and process information as they trickle in….

Will enter my thoughts later. . .

A week or so ago, got an email from Curt Lamansky, likely to be group-mass mailing thingy, informing that major changes has taken place at Northland, my alma mater.  I gathered that this announcement was made during the Missions Conference.  Northland Baptist Bible College will now be under the umbrella of Northland International University.

It turns out to be an expansion of Northland’s vision and purpose to serve a larger community of believers.  A quick visit to Northland’s new website reveals major expansion plans.  One particular page shows video interviews of Dr Les Ollila, Dr Mat Olson and Dr Sam Horn, with each man explaining the purpose and direction in which Northland is heading in the coming days ahead.

With many things happening in my own church and personal lives (illness), I have yet to fully comprehend (actually digest is a more accurate word!) the implication and though some questions are floating in my mind, I am sure in coming days I’ll get some answers and understand things better.

Undoubtedly, certain segments of community will be apprehensive seeing what directions Cedarville and Grand Rapids had become over the years with the change of names.  Will post additional thoughts later.

My alma mater, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, finally obtained academic accreditation.  I’ve always felt it is solid in its theological and academic rigors and only if pursued seriously, there isn’t any reason why accreditation isn’t possible.  Well, they finally did it. 

The seminary website states this:

Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis has received standing as an accredited institution with the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges & Schools (TRACS) on November 4, 2008.

Central Seminary’s initial contact with TRACS took the form of a visit from Dr. Jeff McCann in 2003.  During that visit Dr. McCann convinced the faculty and staff that Central Seminary was in a credible position to aim for accreditation.  After attending a seminar for potential TRACS applicants in early 2004, President Kevin T. Bauder recommended to the faculty and board that Central Seminary pursue accreditation with TRACS. In 2005, the institution wrote its first self-study and hosted its first team visit. In November of that year, Central Seminary received candidate status.

Instead of taking the normal five years to move from candidate to accredited, the administration, faculty, and staff recommended to the board that the institution aim to complete the process in three years. With board support, the whole Central Seminary family labored to attain this goal. By God’s grace and with the support from our alumni and friends, our efforts have been rewarded. Thank you for your support and prayers!

As mentioned in earlier blog, I have always attended Baptist churches that only have two offices: Pastor and deacon.  It is only when in the States that I got to hear about Baptist churches having pastor, elder and deacon.  Usually the Presbyterians are the ones with three offices in the church.  Having said that I am not against the plurality of elders – that is having more than one pastor in a church.   After all, Paul greeted the pastors and deacons (οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις) in his letter to the Philippians. 

I am of the persuasion that the terms: elder (πρεσβύτερος), pastor (ποιμήν) and overseer (ἐπίσκοπος) are different facet of the same office.  The elder having the dignity of office possesses spiritual maturity and thus fit to provide counsel to his community (church); the pastor being the extension of the imagery of shepherd who feeds and protects his flock, and an overseer who supervises the ministries under his charge. He may delegate but he is still ultimately responsible for the efficient operation of the ministries under his charge.  Paul in his address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 reminded them of their responsibilities as overseers and shepherds within the same context. The apostle Peter in 1 Peter 5:1-4 likewise uses overseeing and shepherding in his counsel to the elders.  If these three terms refer to the same office, then I find it hard-pressed to have three offices.  Of course some would say there are possibly four (deaconess).   

The Presbyterians, however, distinguished between ruling elders and teaching elders – the former group is responsible for the administration and running of the ministries whereas the teaching elders focus on the pedagogical aspect of the church ministries.   It is not uncommon for them to have elders who are elected by the church but not have the ability to teach but they ‘rule’.  The justification for this differentiation is 1 Tim 5:17 “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.”  Thus the two categories of elders found in the Presbyterian Church.  I have a problem with this polity because the main distinction between a deacon and an elder/overseer is the latter’s “apt to teach.”

In my view, if one has spiritual qualification but not apt to teach, he ought only to be a deacon.  That does not mean he is lesser for spiritual qualifications for both offices are similar; it is just that if a man does not have the ability to teach, he cannot be an overseer; he should instead be willing and eager to be a deacon, for that is where he will excel.  

As mentioned earlier, pastor, elder and overseer are different facet of the same office; not three officers.  In other words, there are elders who are good at ruling, but there are those who besides ruling well, also excel in word and doctrine.  Paul commands these particular elders to be doubly honored.  The word honor also refers to financial remuneration.  Thus they should be doubly-paid!  It also reiterates the primary ministry of elder/pastor/overseer is that of word and doctrine.  

I believe in plurality of elders but not elder-rule.  Affirmation of plurality of elders does not negate congregational polity. In fact, plurality of elders means the church is better cared for because the work load is spread out; there ought to be greater synergism, not competition within the leadership.  

Will it be accepted in my local circle of independent Baptist circles? I doubt so because they are so entrenched in traditions that it would take a seismic overhaul to change their mindset – to look at their long-held beliefs under the search light of Scriptures.  

Having grown up in Baptist churches that have two offices – pastor and deacon, it required some thinking on my part into the issue of deaconess.  Holding on to tradition seems to be the easier way out – no need to think about it; just do it.  After all, we’ve always done it this way.  Hanging on to tradition seems more plausible. However, the main question is – how does it square with Scriptures?  

Over time, I thought much about deaconess, as well as elders serving alongside pastors and deacons in the church. The latter is another subject matter for another day perhaps.  It took awhile to work out this question about deaconess to my satisfaction and more importantly, more consistently with Scriptures and practice.  So here’s my take:

I see the ministry of the deaconess essentially as an issue of function rather than an office.  Once you are able to distinguish between the two, you will not be easily confused regarding ministry of women in the local church.  

The function of deacon is that of ministry of humble service (διακονία) to others in the local church.  The term διάκονος did not come to be an office until later in Paul’s ministry (eg, Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3).  I believe Dr Hauser is right when he said that Acts 6 is a prototype of deaconate, not the official setting up of the office of such.  The early church is pretty much simple in its set up.  Only as the church grew that it becomes necessary for it to have more structure in place for effective ministry.  

Though there are 2 main views regarding the deaconate, I am still not persuaded that 1 Tim 3 is referring to deaconess as well as deacon. It would seemed strange that Paul would talk about the criteria for deaconate for the man, and then insert a verse for the woman, before resuming his discussion (see, 1 Tim 3:10-12).  I take it then that Paul was addressing the fact that the deacon’s wife will either enhance or hinder his ministry by her speech and lack of self-control.  I have encountered individuals who would have been excellent candidates for the office of deacon but for the testimony of their wives.  It reflects badly on the man’s ability to lead and teach his wife, and possibly his children.  IMHO, this view will be more consistent with Paul’s listing of qualifications for both Pastor and deacons in 1 Tim 3: The testimony of the wives of these men have an effect on the credibility of their husbands. 

Though Paul uses the term διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς  in Rom 16:1 in reference to Phoebe, it seems like Paul was commending her as a great helper than describing her office.  In the early church, women servants cared for sick believers, the poor, strangers, and those in prison. They instructed the women and children too (cf. Titus 2:3-5).  This term is further clarified by Paul that Phoebe had been a great helper (προστάτις) to him.  I suppose that when these women had faithfully served and later on were widowed and destitute, they were to be cared for by the church (1 Tim. 5:3-16). 

I don’t there is anything wrong is ascribing the title of deaconess to women who serve other women in the local church. I believe the Pastor’s ministry is exceedingly enhanced by these faithful women as his ministry is extended further into the lives of children and women. The word προστάτις is where the English word for prosthetics derived its meaning – an extension of the limbs, artificial thought it might be.   

The distinction between function and office is important in deciding types of ministry that women can participate in the local church. 

Having grown up in a particular type of Baptist circle, I was taught that the Lord’s Supper is one of the two ordinances given by the Lord Jesus Christ. the other being water baptism.  Rightly so, both rites are not sacraments are ordinances. The former implying some efficacious grace conferred upon the communicant whereas the latter is but a rite celebrating a particular event. In this case it is the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is a memorial feast, in memory of Jesus Christ who died for the sins of mankind, and it is to remember his salvific act, and above all, celebrate his resurrection and imminent return to gather His saints.

However, the same Baptist group insists that only members of a particular local assembly are allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper since it is for the local church. Thus if there is a fellow Baptist of like faith and practice, of a good standing in his community happen to be in our midst. He is not asked to leave but advice to abstain from partaking.  This is commonly known as “closed communion.”  I have always been taught that concept and accepted it without thinking twice about it.

It was only when I went to the States for Bible college and seminary training that I realized that there is also another school of thought amongst independent Baptist.  My group happened to be closely aligned to Landmarkism. Even if the adherents denied being part of it, by virtue of the similarity of practice and beliefs rendered them similar.  Of course this is by no means guilt by association but a matter of fact.

The other independent Baptists practiced what is known as: “close communion.”  What is the difference? I’ll continue in the next blog.