The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: The Arguments you Need to Defeat the Loony Left By. Mark W. Smith

The above book cover is from a later addition from 2006.  There was also a subsequent edition in 2008.  My reviews are from an earlier edition in 2004.

I would highly recommend this book to the many "conservative" or not so conservative Christians within the broader American landscape (at least of legal registered voters).

The arguments and comments we have all endured over the past months are nothing new.  In fact many of been held by true red-blood republicans for many years.

This book which will serve as the basis for the following comments was published in 2004.  Many of the arguments and comments employed are just as true as when they were first penned (though now 12 years ago).

I would like to list out the table of contents as the following paragraph points with some follow up comments.  I highly recommend this book for talking with those of liberal politically correct slant on life.  The talking points of each chapter are worth their weight in gold.  However I would like to follow up each discussion with some related Biblical comments.  Although, I'm sure there are many who claim the Christian title who would disagree with nearly every chapter.  So here we go.

Chapter one is entitled, "Find your Vast Right-wing conspiracy rating."  So how would you answer the following (I'll updated some of it to fit our current election candidates field) (pp. 3-5)  His answers are multiple choice I'll just leave a blank.

1. The person best qualified to choose my doctor, my child's teacher, what to eat, and whether I should smoke is _______________.

2. When shopping, I am most likely to make an impulse buy of _______________.

3. Fill in the blank:  The government that governs ________________, governs best.

4. Who was the best president of the last thirty years? _______________.

5. Which nations should have nuclear weapons (nukes)? _______________.

6. Who should own guns in America? _______________.

7. Fill in the blank: Taxes should be __________________________.

8. Before America takes any more military action in the war on terror, we should _______________.

9. The military budget should be _______________.

10. What makes you angry? _______________.

11. Which phrase best describes your beliefs _______________.

12. Who gave you your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? _______________.

Depending on how you answer these questions is a good determinate how much a card carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy you truly are.

Just to see where you are in the mix I would like to give you a small illustration.

A young 19-year old daughter just returned from her freshman year and big secular state university somewhere.  She returned home and commenced to pontificate wildly on the many grand things she learned.  She boasted of here high test scores and stellar GPA.  Her father however noticed her dismay at the hard work she put in and the seemingly care-free mentality of her college friends (who seemed to spend more time partying than studying).

In the course of discussion the daughter began to talk with her dad about her new eye opening view of liberal politics and social concerns.  She commenced to continue in disagreement with her father on nearly every issue of conservative politics ranging from finances, war, immigration, gun control, moral and ethical issues, and even religious freedom.  He responded with an illustration from her first semester of college.  It goes as follows.

Father: "I'm sure you worked hard for your grades and high test scores and I'm sure you made a great many personal sacrifices to achieve these goals on your own."

Daughter: "Yes."

Father: "Are you still somewhat upset with your friends carefree view of their education?"

Daughter: "Yes."

Father: "So here is what we'll do.  Since you are so concerned about your friends and their bad GPA.  We'll take from your hard earned GPA and give it to those who party and won't study.  That way everyone will have access to the same GPA and test scores."

Daughter: "But that's not fair,  I'm the one who worked hard for the GPA and good test scores."

Father: "Welcome to the Republican Party!"

Stay tuned to the next chapter, "No liberal media bias? Let's get real."

Pastoral Hierarchy: Is there a prescriptive or descriptive order among elders? (Part Five)

Series Part One       Series Part Two        Series Part Three       Series Part Four

Pastoral Hierarchy: Is there a prescriptive or descriptive case for an order among elders/pastors?

Ever heard the terms senior pastor, youth pastor, assistant pastor, college and career pastor?  If you have heard of these terms, were they of equal pay and authority?  Was one of them over the others?

How about among those who have some form of lay/paid elders in their local church.  Are they all of equal authority?  Are some more authoritative than others or do they all get one equal vote when decisions are made?  Ever wondered why?

Before covering some of the basic scriptural texts addressing this issue so comments are needed.
First, some use the above terms simply in a pragmatic way.  Allow me to elaborate.  A church may reach a size where either the one pastor or the congregation feels that more help is needed.  They therefore "call" another individual to fill/serve in another "pastoral" position.  Well, you can't just call them both pastor.  So one becomes the senior pastor and the next what is called his assistant.  If given an age category perhaps youth, college/career or senior citizen pastor.

So in essence, they actually have a "plurality" of elders within their local church, however in this case they both are normally "on staff" or "paid" elders as opposed to a "lay" elder who has a full/part-time job to help pay the bills (it must be noted that in some churches even the senior pastor is technically a "lay" pastor since he works a full/part-time job to meet his family's financial needs).  Normally, but not always the second or third pastors are also ordained by the local church (but not always).  Or add in another variable his wife works a full/part-time job so that he can pastor a local church (I'm sure there is a broad array of views on this one, including paying the "hubbies" way through seminary).

Second, some use the above terms as part of a church hierarchy.  This means that some church leaders are actually in a position above other church leaders not part of their local congregation.  This means that leaders outside of that local church (or a group of them) can make decisions that are then placed upon other local churches.  This is no small matter.  Sometimes the group outside of the local church actually owns the building the people are meeting.  Think of the consequences of this.  If the local church does not submit to or obey the rules/laws/decrees of the higher governing body they can and have actually lose their church (sometimes pastor/elders have been removed from their pulpits).  We will have to address the one main text for this concept in a later thread (just for a hint: try reading Acts 15 and think in prescriptive/descriptive terms for local churches today).  Many entire denominations function within this structure (note your KJV still retains the church structure of "bishops" and "elders").

Third, some simply have a combination of the above two positions,  But is there any biblical precedent either descriptively or prescriptively to have some church leaders more authoritative than others, both of which are identified as "elders" or "pastors."

There are mainly two ways in which this question is answered.  You decide whether the texts are actually teaching the relationship of pastors to other pastors in the same local church.  Or on the other hand, are we looking for any hierarchy found in scripture and using it for justification?  Is this being descriptive, prescriptive or neither one?

First, is the relationship among the twelve apostles.  From this concept, two items are extrapolated.  Peter always appears first in the listing of the twelve.  This is determined to mean he is more authoritative creating an ecclesiastical hierarchy.  Within this grouping Peter, Andrew, James, and John appear together at the top of the list (Mt 10).  Acts 1 keeps the top four but changes around the order "Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew."  Unfortunately, the listing breaks down for the mount of transfiguration (Mt 17), Andrew is nowhere to be found.  So this position has to rely entirely upon the listing of the twelve exclusively or simply that Peter appears first each time or that he answers first on a regular basis (Mt 16).  If I'm not mistaken, didn't Rome do this already with him?

Second, as has been discussed in an earlier thread in this series 1 Timothy 5:17-18 is a key text in this issue.  Do some elders teach and other elders rule?  Do all elders rule and some teach?  Or is it the same elders doing the ruling and teaching?  Is it the grammar of the passage that actually produces a pastoral hierarchy or are there outside factors?  You make the decision.

Comments encouraged.  Hope this helps anyone in these areas.
I have tried to accurately represent each position through probably not every possible caveat.

Book Recommendation "God Rest Ye Merry: Why Christmas is the foundation for Everything" By. Douglas Wilson

"God Rest Ye Merry: Why Christmas is the foundation for Everything"
By Douglas Wilson (Canon Press, 2012)

Here is a glimpse of the table of contents:

Lesson 1: To Gain His Everlasting Hall

Lesson 2: The Politics of Christmas

Lesson 3: Celebrating Christmas like a Puritan

Lesson 4: How Shall we then Shop?

Lesson 5: Daily Meditations for Advent

The Advent calendar meditations are well-written and extend for a full 30 day period.

New Testament Local Church Polity: Elder or Congregational? Part Two

Series Part One

This issue is important as to how God's church governs itself.  What does the New Testament tell us about how decisions are made within the local church?  Part One of this short series discussed the NT data commonly used to teach congregational polity.  This article will take up the other side of the coin focusing on the NT data used to show a plurality of elders in the local church.

By way of reminder, we need to remind ourselves what verses are appropriate to consider in this conversation.  But how do we determine what is appropriate?  Two key ideas govern this process.  First, some verses are what is called "descriptive."  These types of verses "describe" what was actually happening in first century churches and surrounding culture.  Second, there are verses called "prescriptive."  These verses actually tell us or give to us commands concerning how the church or believers are to function today. 

So what verses are interpreted as teaching a plurality of elders within each local church?  The primary source of evidence (at least from a descriptive view) comes from the book of Acts.  The primary verses come from chapters 14, 15, and 20.  Consider the following:

Acts 14:23 "and when they had ordained them elders in every church"

Acts 15:4 "they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders"

Acts 20:17 "and called the elders of the church"

The primary important concept in these verses is that that term for "elders" occurs in the plural and the term for "church" appears in the singular.  At face value, this is interpreted to mean there are multiple elders each local church.  Evidence for this also appears after the book of Acts within epistles written to both local churches and to individuals.  These are as follows:

1 Timothy 5:17 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."

Tit 1:5 "that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee"

Jam 5:14 "the elders of the church"

1 Pet 5:1 "the elders among you"

Each of these verses is interpreted in similar fashion as teaching that there are multiple elders in each local church.  Question: then why do some churches only have one pastor?  Is it because the church is too small?  Is it because no one else is qualified within the local church?  Or is it possible that these and other verses can be interpreted as teaching each local church only needs one elder in each local church?

I invite you to search this out.  I will address this issue in a third and final article in this series.  Just some thoughts to consider before the third article:

1. What is ordination?  Associated to this should we ordain every elder in the local church?

2. What is a senior, associate, or youth pastor?  Why these adjectives and what NT precedence if any?

3. What verses teach we should pay elders, and how to decide which ones to pay or not?

4. What is a lay elder, teaching elder, or ruling elder?

5. What are bishops, overseers, pastors, or elders?  How to identify titles and roles?

These are some rough thoughts with (has been pointed out already) may include some grammatical issues.  Sorry for those.

New Testament Local Church Polity: Congregational or Elders? Part One

Who actually makes decisions in the local church? The congregation or elders?  What does the New Testament actually say regarding this issue?  The question sounds simple enough but is actually harder to answer than one might think.

Here are some basic thoughts to consider on this issue:
1. What NT texts describe events occurring in the first century? (Descriptive or Normative texts--fancy words for what was going on in the first century context)
2. What NT texts actually prescribe to us what the church should actually do? (Maybe not a command as such but think along these lines)

(Oh, by the way have different positions don't agree on how to define numbers one and two above).

So with that in mind let's consider the actual NT biblical data.  This article will consider the standard texts used to defend congregational polity.  This basically means that the actual members of the church are making the decisions within the church.  We will consider the following texts: Mt 18, Acts 6, 13, 15; 1 Cor 5, 2 Thess 3, and lastly 1 Tim 5.  These will suffice for now in discussing one side of the issue.

Matthew 18:15-20 involves a context of disciplining a sinning brother "if thy brother" (v. 15).  The context includes three steps: first, confronting the person alone.  Second, confronting the person with someone else.  Third, our concern is that the last stage is to bring the issue before the church (v. 17).  So the last stage in the disciplining process is  bringing the issue before the congregation "the church."  The pronouns in the passage are 2nd person plural "you" not referring to individuals (steps one and two) but step three.  Nearly every book or journal on church discipline includes this passage.  This adds initial weight to the congregation making the final decision (here in the context of discipline).

Acts 6:1-7 includes the popularized texts for the selection of the first NT deacons (the verb form appears as "serve" in verse two).  The apostles have their given tasks.  The people are to select the people to fill this serving role (deacons) if necessary.  The plural noun "you" and "brethren" both refer to the congregation.  They chose seven men for this service.  Verse six does not specifically identify who "prayed" and "laid hands" on those selected.  Either way, the people did the selecting of the seven individuals.  If this passage is only normative, then all the later passages for elders (plural) are in jeopardy also.

Acts 13:1-5 includes the selection of Paul and Barnabas for missionary work (regularly identified as Paul's first missionary journey).  The two men are identified by the Holy Spirit (v. 2).  Someone prays and someone then lays hands on the two men before they depart.  If this parallels Acts 6 then perhaps the laying of hands (v. 3) was done by the people.  The plural verbs point to a corporate commissioning.  Strangely enough even the notes of the ESV Study Bible refer to the pronoun "they" as the "whole congregation."

Acts 15 addresses what is commonly called the Jerusalem Council.  This context involves both the congregation and leaders in tandem.  The church decides to sent representatives (v. 2).  Paul and Barnabas are then sent by the local church congregation (v.3).  These representative are then received by another local church congregation and their leaders (v. 4).  When the decisions are final addressed and discussed by both Peter and James it is agreed to by the congregation with representatives sent (vv. 22-23).  This passage adds weight even when doctrinal issues are stake the congregation is involved.  The decisions are not just dictated to them or their thoughts ignored.

In 1 Cor 5 church discipline is under ("if  any man that is called a brother," v. 11).  The pronouns are in the plural, which could be applied with some degree of consistency throughout commands in the epistles to local churches.  They have the obligation as a congregation (plural members) to remove the unrepentant sinning brother "put away" (v. 13).

2 Thess 3 also appears in the context of local church congregation discipline.  The pronouns here again appear in the plural "you."  The command is tough to obey, nevertheless it is addressed to the congregation not just the leaders "ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly" (v. 6).  The congregation has a responsibility to make the decision in confronting and removing a sinning church member.

Lastly, we shall consider 1 Timothy 5:19-20.  Great care is need in confronting the sinful choices of church "elders."  The pattern from Deut 19 "two or three witnesses" enforces that idea that mulitiple people will be need in sin confrontation (Note same pattern back in Matt 18).  Note the pattern that when "elders" sin (not just any church member) they are to be confronted "before all (v. 20).  Seems to identify the idea of congregational involvement.  I've seen this played out before in local churches when elders have to be confronted.  Note also  the motive "that others may fear."  Seems most natural to take the others as congregation members.  Interestingly here the ESV notes add the phrase "the rest of the elders" potentially making the connection with verse 17.  However, the notes state it could refer to "the rest of the congregation" with the phrase "before all.''  I would suggest the weight shifts toward the whole congregation with both phrases combined.

These texts are enough to at least identify congregational decision making within the local church or among the believers.  Part two will address the texts used by advocates of a plurality of laymen elders.

Hope this helps in this area.  This is only a collection of thoughts.  Definitely not a 30 page, footnoted research paper.  But in essence these texts have to be downplayed, ignored, or never taught to help establish a plurality of elders system within a local church context.  Even if you disagree with the congregational role then maybe you would at least acknowledge accountability is needed for leaders within a local church.
Till next time.