We live in a world with its own set of one-anothers: one-another brokenness, one-another enmity, one-another manipulation, one-another selfishness. And local churches exist to show a different way of life—a different Lord of life. This Lord reconciles us not only to himself, but to each other, creating one-another love out of one-another pain.

I sometimes think I could be very holy if, after doing my morning devotions, I just stayed in my room all day long. I find that patience, for example, comes easier by myself. Peace, too. I feel a general kindness and goodwill when I’m alone. I imagine myself ready to bear others’ burdens.
But then I leave my room and begin interacting with some of those “others” face to face. And before long, I wonder where my holiness went. Patience now feels fragile; peace goes on the retreat. My theoretical kindness finds itself unprepared for real annoyances, and my shoulders seem too weak for real burdens. People, it turns out, have an irritating way of poking the spiritual fruit on my table, only to reveal just how many of those apples and pears are plastic.
I might prefer holiness to be a more private affair, a halo that hangs over my solitary head. But “holiness,” John Stott helpfully reminds me, “is not a mystical condition experienced in relation to God but in isolation from human beings. You cannot be good in a vacuum, but only in the real world of people” (Message of Ephesians, 184). True holiness may begin between God and the soul, but it finds full expression in community with other people—other wonderful, glorious, frustrating, and sometimes offensive people.
Which explains why, again and again, the New Testament describes the authentically holy life using two simple words: “one another.”
The One-Anothers
Around fifty times in the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles tell us to feel, say, or do something to “one another.” We are to care for one another and bear with one another, honor one another and sing to one another, do good to one another and forgive one another. And then there is the grand, overarching, most-repeated one-another, the command that “binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Colossians 3:14): “Love one another.”
The one-anothers do not exhaust our obligations to other Christians (many communal imperatives do not include the phrase “one another”), but together they offer a brilliant picture of life together under the lordship of Christ—and not only under the lordship of Christ, but also in the pattern of Christ. For, rightly grasped, the one-anothers are nothing less than the life of Christ at work in the people of Christ to glory of Christ.
Consider, for example, how even in a community-oriented passage like Colossians 3:12–17 (which includes three one-anothers), Paul can’t stop talking about Jesus. Our new character—compassionate, kind, humble, meek, patient (verse 12)—reflects “the image of its creator,” Christ (verse 10). We forgive “as the Lord has forgiven [us]” (verse 13). Our unity reflects “the peace of Christ” (verse 15); our words flow from “the word of Christ” (verse 16). In fact, whatever we do in community, we do “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (verse 17). For here, “Christ is all, and in all” (verse 11).
The one-anothers, then, are earthly dramas of heavenly realities; they are the love of Christ played out on ten thousand stages. So, with this pattern in mind, we might fruitfully consider the one-anothers in five categories: have his mind, offer his welcome, speak his words, show his love, and give his grace.
1. Have His Mind
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count [one another] more significant than yourselves.(Philippians 2:3)
Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another.(1 Peter 5:5)
We might easily launch into the one-anothers wondering about all we should do for our brothers and sisters in Christ—and indeed, the one-anothers call us to do much. But before we say or do anything for one another, God calls us to feel something toward one another. “Have this mind among yourselves,” he says, “which is yours in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5). And this mind, or attitude, can be captured in one word: humility.
It is possible—frighteningly possible, I’ve discovered—to externally “obey” the one-anothers with a mind utterly at odds with Christ. It’s possible to greet one another with a smile that hides bitterness; and encourage one another with a grasping, flattering heart; and bear one another’s burdens with a messiah complex. In other words, it is possible to turn the one-anothers into subtle servants of Master Self.
Humility, however, clothes us with the others-oriented attitude of Christ. Humility puts a pair of eyeglasses on the soul, allowing us to see others without the blurring of selfishness. And humility, in its own miniature way, follows the same descent Christ took when he “humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death” (Philippians 2:8). It goes low to lift others high—and doesn’t scheme for how it might lift self too.
In a Spirit-filled community, we all (no matter how tall) look up at each other, not down; we jostle to kneel and hold the towel; we choose the seat of the last and the least—because we remember how Jesus did the same for us.
Read More
Related Posts:

What does spending endless hours on Latin, Greek, Logic, Rhetoric, Jurisprudence, Physics, and Metaphysics result in? An elite capable of navigating the scientific, theological, and political milieu of early modern Europe. No wonder the educational system produced such polymaths—renaissance men—able to discourse on law as theologians, theology as lawyers and politicians, and politics as theologians. The reason civil magistrates were so invested in university education was precisely because they were political institutions. Education is inherently political as one recent outfit has noted. Even our own American political tradition has recognized the political and anti-egalitarian nature of education. 

Classical education advocates often make the claim that true education—done classically—is not about career training, social advancement, or college preparation; instead, classical education is primarily, if not solely, concerned with virtue formation and a pursuit of the transcendentals—truth, goodness, and beauty. Any social or political benefits are simply ancillary to the real aim of a classical education: learning to think, becoming a better person, and knowing what to love. Insofar as this is merely a description, rather than a prescription, of how the modern classical education movement conceives of its own teleology, regrettably this may very well be true. Yet, rarely do such advocates interrogate how “classical” such a view of education really is. Is it really the case that education in the medieval and early modern periods did not aim at career training? Did early modern grammar schools (our equivalent of secondary schools) focus on preparing their students for further university education? What sort of education produced the likes of John Milton and John Donne, Francisco Suárez and Pierre Gassendi, John Owen and Gisbertus Voetius, Robert Boyle and René Descartes? 
Desiderius Erasmus’ De civilitate morum puerilium (On the Cultivation of the Manner of Boys)—a paragon of the new humanist educational program in early modern Europe—laid out four aims of education: piety, love for the liberal studies, instruction in daily life, and the teaching of customs and manners of civility. The first two were not unconnected from the latter two. Good people were to live good lives. Johann Sturm, the great 16th-century German educator, in his treatise on how the gymnasium (the modern equivalent of a secondary school) in Strasbourg makes this connection more concrete: “For as it was almost always useful for individual private citizens to have their children conversant with the discipline of the liberal arts, so in the public realm it was essential for all for the preservation of the state that some persons stand forth who, in periods of crisis and danger, would look after the needs of state not only advantageously, but also wisely.” In other words, liberal learning has its usefulness, especially in the formation of a political elite who would rule wisely. This is not my interpretation of Sturm’s belief. Lewis Spitz, the great Lutheran historian begrudgingly admits it: “Sturm’s inflexible standards fueled his determined optimism that the elite, and thus only a very small fraction of the youth, who were trained in the classics, could achieve the highest cultural goals their society had to offer them.” What were these standards? A mastery of language (grammar), a mastery of thinking (dialectic), and a mastery of speaking (rhetoric).
Read More
Related Posts:

O15 was one of three overtures presbyteries considered in 2022-23 on the topic of sexuality. Overture 29 (O29) and Overture 31 (O31) passed in a supermajority of presbyteries and will come to the floor of GA this summer, where a simple majority vote of commissioners will amend the BCO with their language. Two sexuality overtures—Overture 23 (O23) and Overture 37 (O37)—failed to reach the two-thirds threshold in 2021-22.

With the Presbyterian Church in America’s 2023 General Assembly quickly approaching, I thought I’d take one final look at the presbytery votes on Overture 15 (O15). In total, 81 presbyteries have recorded votes on O15, with the overture receiving a majority vote in 48 presbyteries, 11 shy of the two-thirds threshold needed to bring O15 to the floor of GA this June.
Comparing O15 votes to last year’s sexuality overtures
O15 was one of three overtures presbyteries considered in 2022-23 on the topic of sexuality. Overture 29 (O29) and Overture 31 (O31) passed in a supermajority of presbyteries and will come to the floor of GA this summer, where a simple majority vote of commissioners will amend the BCO with their language. Two sexuality overtures—Overture 23 (O23) and Overture 37 (O37)—failed to reach the two-thirds threshold in 2021-22.
A scatter plot is a helpful graph for quickly considering how a vote on one overture compared to a vote on another overture. The figure below plots six scatterplots, with each dot representing a presbytery. Presbytery votes on the 2021-22 overtures are plotted on the horizontal y-axis: O23 in the first column and O37 in the second column. Presbytery votes on the 2022-23 overtures are plotted on the vertical y-axis: O31 in the first row, O29 in the second row, and O15 in the third row. The red diagonal line indicates parity; presbyteries falling on this line voted exactly the same on one of last year’s overtures as they did on one of this year’s. Presbyteries above this line had a greater percentage of officers supporting one of this year’s overtures relative to either of last year’s overtures.

Two quadrants are of greatest interest. The top left quadrant (with green dots) plot presbyteries that voted against an overture last year, but flipped to support it this year. The bottom right quadrant (with red dots) plots presbyteries that voted in favor of an overture last year, but flipped to oppose it this year.
By the number of green dots, it is clear that O29 and O31 were highly regarded, even by presbyteries voting against sexuality overtures last year. With only one exception (Platte Valley, which passed O37 last year but did not pass O31 this year), presbyteries either had the same outcome or flipped to support this year’s overtures.
O15 did not follow the same pattern as O29 and O31. Presbyteries landed much closer to the parity line, indicating that many voted on O15 similarly to how they voted last year. The plot also features a mix of green and red dots, revealing that there were many presbyteries that changed their vote from last year’s overtures to O15.
A Sankey plot is useful for visualizing trends for how presbyteries may have shifted votes. It shows the proportion of presbyteries passing sexuality overtures in each year, as well as the paths presbyteries took from year to year. The plot below shows that votes on O15 were largely predictable. Presbyteries that supported both O23 and O37 last year tended to pass O15, while those that opposed both O23 and O37 tended not to pass O15.

Minority Report signers and recorded negative votes
Previously for The Aquila Report, I examined O15’s progress based on commissioners who recorded negative votes against O15 at PCA GA 2022, as well as commissioners on the Overtures Committee who signed the Minority Report that brought O15 to the floor of GA. The bar graph below replicates my previous analysis, but with final data.

Over four-fifths of presbyteries with Minority Report signers (in favor of O15) passed O15, while just less than half of presbyteries without a Minority Report signer passed O15. In contrast, just less than half of presbyteries with a recorded negative vote (against O15) passed O15, while four-fifths of presbyteries without a recorded negative vote passed O15. The data, in my opinion, reveals two competing opinions within the PCA on whether the sexuality issue among ordained officers has been resolved.
Looking ahead to GA 2023
This summer, the Overtures Committee will consider five overtures that take up the issue of sexuality.

Overture 9 from Arizona Presbytery would amend the BCO by adding the following paragraph to Chapter 7: “Men who deviate–whether by declared conviction, self-description, lifestyle decisions, or overt practice–from God’s creational intention for human sexuality are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”
Overture 16 from Catawba Valley Presbytery would amend the BCO by adding the following paragraph to Chapter 7: “Men who describe themselves by any biblical sin (such as listed in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, ‘Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.’) are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America. Instead, they describe themselves by 1 Cor. 6:11, ‘And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.’”
Overture 17 from the Session of Meadowview Reformed Presbyterian Church would amend the BCO by adding the following paragraph to Chapter 7: “Men who refer to a particular sin struggle as descriptive of their personhood, being, or identity are disqualified from holding office in the PCA.”
Overture 23 from Mississippi Valley Presbytery would amend the BCO by adding the following line to 8-2: “He should conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in his descriptions of himself, his convictions, character, and conduct”; and the following line to 9-3: “conforming to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in their descriptions of themselves, their convictions, character, and conduct.”
And finally, Overture 24 from Chesapeake Presbytery would amend the BCO by adding the following line to 8-3: “As those who are to be examples to God’s flock that is under their care, and who are to watch their life and doctrine closely, elders are to understand, describe, and define themselves in light of their union with Christ as justified and holy children of God. They are to guard against setting a damaging or confusing example to the flock by describing or defining themselves by their sinful desires (e.g., from 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 (ESV)… ‘the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,…’ etc.), but rather are to endeavor by the grace of God to confess, repent of, and mortify sin and sinful desires, and to present themselves and those entrusted to their care as instruments of righteousness to God.”

Overtures 9, 16, and 17 follow the pattern of O15 this past year by seeking to add a paragraph to BCO 7. Pray for the men of the Overtures Committee (as well as the PCA!) as they take up these matters in June.
Matthew Lee is a ruling elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Fayetteville, AR.
Related Posts: