Highlands Reformed Church

Rev. Brian M. AbshireAs I write this column, I am also celebrating (?) my 44th birthday. Middle age has come with an unexpected vengeance. Emotionally, I still think of myself as fairly young until reality confronts me every morning by the old man staring back at me out of the mirror. My manly red beard has more than a few strands of white in it these days, and the once bulging arm and shoulder muscles of my youth now seemed to have all migrated South around my mid-section. Just so I wouldn’t miss the significance of the loss of youth, cards and letters have poured in from friends and family commiserating with me for reaching such an advanced age; my wife teases me about the inordinate amount of pink scalp peering through the crown of my head (“My, my Dear, looking a bit Benedictine these, days are we?”) while my children warned me about not blowing out my birthday candles too hard lest my teeth fall out. And sadly, there is some measure of truth to these comments; though I am still vigorous enough to chase my wife around the house, when I finally catch her, by mutual agreement we usually decide that a good night’s sleep is ample enough reward.

There is a relationship I think between our attitudes towards age, and our appreciation of the Old Testament. In our youth oriented culture, age is often associated with obsolescence; what’s new, is by definition superior. The broad evangelical Church right across the world has largely abandoned the Old Testament as anything other than the quaint musings of an old man not quite in touch with today’s modern world. Consequently, while we may occasionally pay polite attention to his reminiscences, we do not really think he has anything of value to say. Right from the start, when the church imbibed deeply from the wells of Greek philosophy, there has been a problem both in understanding and applying the Old Testament. It has either been spiritualized away, or simply ignored. Old Testament religion is a gutsy, earthy, visceral faith that quite frankly, offends the sensibilities of Greek-influenced Christianity. Modern Christians are sundered from their past and ill equipped for their future because they fail to understand the unity of the Scriptures.

Yet, New Testament Christianity sits on a pyramid of Old Testament religion. If you remove the foundation, then the capstone collapses. Without a proper understanding of the role and significance of the Old Testament, the Church is susceptible to every kind of error. The apostate, bland, ineffectual, culturally compromised Church of today has only to look at its rejection of the Old Testament to discover the source of many of its errors.

In Authority 2 Tim 3:16-17
When the Apostle Paul wrote to encourage Timothy in his duties, he says, “All Scripture was given by inspiration of God.” Amazing that this verse, so often quoted as evidence of the authority of the Bible, is seldom understood in context. The Scriptures he was talking about here was NOT the New Testament (after all, it was still in the process of being written!) but rather what we call the Old Testament. The Bible for first century readers WAS the Old Testament and Paul consistently appeals to them as his source of authority. God had spoken to his church authoritatively and sufficiently through the Old Testament. They were sufficient to “make one wise unto salvation” (2 Tim 3:15) and therefore were to be revered, read, studied and applied. True, Jesus rebuked the traditions of men that had grown up around the Scriptures, but He fully affirmed their authority (Matt 5:17-19). Granted, the Old Testament spoke in shadows, types and figures and a great part of the New Testament revelation was designed to show the reality that the ancient writers only dimly glimpsed. But the fact is, one cannot understand New Testament revelation without understanding the Old Testament foundations. Hence, repeatedly, Paul appeals to the Old Testament to demonstrate the authenticity of his message.

In today’s church, the authority of the Old Testament is either ignored, or so re-interpreted to be meaningless. I remember once a most painful sermon, preached by a friend of mine on Elijah and the Shummanite woman. She and her husband built and furnished him a little room on the top of her house. We then listened for a good hour about all the hidden, spiritual meanings behind the furniture (as I recall the bed represented rest in the Lord, the lamp for study, the chair for discipleship, etc). But we never did hear about the necessity of hospitality. In other words, the CLEAR message is ignored and instead we are treated to men’s imagination. The Old Testament is simply not allowed to speak for itself, and therefore the Church’s foundations are undercut and destroyed.

In Worship; the Regulative Principle
As much as I deeply appreciate our Puritan and Presbyterian ancestors, they must be understood in their historical context. Coming out of the corrupt Church of Rome, they struggled against the apostate, man-made religious practices that like weeds had choked out true worship in the church. As a consequence, it can be argued that they sometimes over-reacted in their own theology of worship. It’s almost as if they said, “If Rome did it, then it MUST be wrong” rather than develop a consistent Biblical view. Hence, while most Christians take for granted today singing hymns with musical accompaniment, this was utterly rejected by 17th century Reformers in Scotland and England; strict psalmody with no instruments was the rule. There are still a few brothers today who maintain this position, but in doing so, I fear that they have become operational Dispensationalists, demanding a radical break between Old Testament worship and New. Old Testament worship was replete with musical instruments of various kinds all making a joyful noise unto the Lord. I always find it a bit amusing to worship with my exclusive psalmody brethren, and while singing the Psalms with them, watch them pointedly ignore the commands to worship with stringed instrument, flute and lyre!

When Scripture enjoins us to clap our hands, or raise them in prayer, most Reformed people just wish those verses would ago away because you see, if the Charismatics do it, then it MUST be wrong! And hence, a full-orbed worship service, demanding all of our strength and heart and soul is often missing, because we do not appreciate God’s requirements for worship. Those commands cannot possibly be relevant today, because of course, we have never done it that way. “Can any good come out of Charismatics?” And we maintain this position even though there is not a shred of New Testament evidence that these practices somehow passed away with the establishment of the New Testament Church. A strong argument can be made that many Christians are drawn into the deviant theology of so many Charistmatic churches, simply because their worship is so heartfelt, so vigorous, dare one say, “so BIBLICAL!” We ignore the Old Testament at our peril. As a friend of mine once noted, many Reformed Christians worship as if they were baptized in pickle juice! It is astounding that so many sing the Psalms to tunes that deny the very joy the words so powerfully command!!

In Polity: 1 Tim 3:1ff
As a convinced Presbyterian, I believe that our form of government is the one ordained by God Himself (notice I said the FORM of government, not necessarily all the particulars). God’s church is to be ruled by elders. This is very clear from 1 Timothy 3:1ff, 5:14ff, etc. But this method of church government did not just spring full-blown from the Apostle Paul. In Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council, the Apostles and Elders were already ruling the Church. Where in the New Testament do then we find the specific instructions that this is the right form of government? Simple answer; nowhere. It just suddenly seems to appear! The reason of course is that the church is to be governed exactly the way that Israel was to be governed under Moses; by elders. Elders were to govern their homes, their families, their tribes and ultimately the nation. Elders were to govern the Tabernacle and Temple. Elders governed the local synagogues. But you will not find this in the New Testament, it is found only in the Old. One cannot possibly understand, let alone rule God’s church apart from the theological and practical basis laid out in the Old Testament. Bannerman, the classic Presbyterian apologist for church polity understood this and based his concepts on their Old Testament origins.

A related area is the way that elders were to be placed over the church. Presbyterians, at least in this country, have always elected their elders by the congregation. But in the two passages that actually teach on elders, they were to be appointed by Timothy and Titus. Think about this for a moment, especially you good Presbyterians. If we base our polity ONLY on the New Testament, then guess what, the two relevant Scriptural passages would seem, on the surface to support Episcopacy, rather than historic Presbyterianism? However, if one finds the origins of Church government in the way that the congregation of Israel was to be ordered, then Jethro’s advice to Moses allows an avenue of escape. The people were to elect their elders from the people. Moses then ORDAINS them to rule over the people. Hence, when the Church is being organized, one can assume, because of testamental continuity, that a similar process was followed. When Paul therefore instructs elders to be “appointed” Timothy and Titus would then have followed the same procedure as ancient Israel; i.e., they would have gone to the congregation, asked them to select worthy men, and then, they would have been approved, appointed and ordained by the apostolic messengers. This in fact is very similar to the way that modern Presbyterians choose their church officers. Men are elected by the congregation, but ordained by the Session or the Presbytery.

Think about this; a subject near and dear to every pastor’s heart is where his paycheck is coming from (and how much is in it!). While Paul does say that elders are worthy of a double honor (1 Tim 5:17) he bases their RIGHT to be paid for their ministry (as opposed to all the other ministries that people do for the church gratis) on the Old Testament Law regarding muzzling the ox. Hence the theological basis for paying elders is not out of expediency, and not by direct command (though Jesus did say the “laborer is worthy of his hire,”) but rather an obscure Old Testament reference to animal welfare!

But look what happens if we ignore the Old Testament basis. Pastors are either starved into submission (people will give money to anything in the church EXCEPT to pay most pastors a living wage) or the pastor becomes a vampire, sucking the life out of the church. There is no balance, because there is no theology of how much is enough. Broad evangelicals do not know the theology and therefore they pervert the practice (how would you like to submit YOUR tax returns to the church so everyone can criticize how you have spent the Lord’s money? You think I am joking?).

The point here of course is that the New Testament, in and of itself, does not and cannot form the foundation of the doctrine of the Church. Without the Old Testament, we are left in a morass of subjective opinion, with no clear basis for developing a Biblical church polity.

In Vision Matt 28:19-20
One of the first verses I was required to memorize years ago when I was involved with a para-church ministry, was the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. Evangelism and discipleship were the lifeblood of this ministry and we were all expected to share a “simple” explanation of the gospel and then when people prayed the prayer with us, “disciple” them by taking through one of those fill-in-the-blank bible study booklets. Even with all the simplistic theology and practice that this method represents, it is still LIGHTYEARS ahead of where the average broad evangelical church is. At least we took these verses seriously and were personally committed to doing something about them. The average broad evangelical is quite happy leaving the Great Commission to the Bible geeks and four-eyed girls with sensible shoes who want to go to the mission field.

Neither the modern church nor the para-church can either adequately understand or fulfill the Great Commission because they do not acknowledge the Old Testament background. Jesus was not doing something new here, He was not instituting some radical new program, for the Great Commission is simply the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:27 all over again! We are to fill the earth and subdue it, not just through natural generation, but by evangelism. Furthermore, it is not just the odd branch plucked from the fire, instead, it is entire nations that are to be discipled to obey Jesus. In the Great Commission we simply have the final statement on how the original Covenant of Creation is to be fulfilled. It is a resounding postmillennial commission, implicitly assuming that as the church goes forth and depends on the sovereign power of the resurrected and ascended Christ, that our enemies will be converted, the nations subdued, and that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Therefore the church cannot know who she is, where she is going, or even what she is supposed to be apart from understanding her Old Testament roots. Without the Old Testament, the church is susceptible to every kind of error and heresy. There is no doubt in my mind, that the current deplorable state of the church is directly attributable to her abandonment of truly Biblical religion. Hey folks, there are no “New Testament” churches; there are only Biblical ones. And that means understanding and applying what the WHOLE Bible says, not just a few bits here and there.