Since that time, I’ve been thinking about why the overtures failed.  They passed overwhelmingly at General Assembly after all.  I don’t claim to be an expert at the way things work to get an overture passed.  I’ve been trying to bone up on that.  But something occurred to me recently.  Why didn’t all of the men who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?

Like many other conservative elders in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), I was discouraged that Overtures 23 and 37 failed to pass at the presbytery level. As a Ruling Elder (RE) I’m not able to attend as many presbytery meetings as Teaching Elders (TEs).  But I made it a point to attend this past meeting – not only to vote but also to speak in favor of the overtures.  Out of about 50 voters, the overtures failed in the presbytery at a rate of about 5 to 1.  It wasn’t even close.
Since we took the vote by counting hands, I looked around to see who voted in favor and who opposed.  I counted roughly 10 hands in favor, which were 7 more than the 3 conservative voters that spoke up during the floor discussion.  Our presbytery set apart about an hour of time for pre-voting dialogue/debate.  One spoke in favor, then one spoke in opposition, and each speaker had about 3 minutes to make his case. We didn’t use the full hour and I was only allowed one chance to speak per overture.  Since I was one of the first in line to speak, I couldn’t respond to those who spoke in opposition to the overtures.
As I mentioned, the overtures failed in my presbytery.  This was discouraging, but not shocking.  Then some days later I heard that the overtures failed to pass across the entire denomination, which was both discouraging and shocking – especially for an optimillenialist.
Since that time, I’ve been thinking about why the overtures failed.  They passed overwhelmingly at General Assembly after all.  I don’t claim to be an expert at the way things work to get an overture passed.  I’ve been trying to bone up on that.  But something occurred to me recently.  Why didn’t all of the men who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?
With Titus 1 in mind, I’d like to make a plea to those elders who were silent except for their afirmative vote.  Since the Lord Jesus Christ gave qualifications for REs and TEs in His own holy Word, that means I must turn to His word as I appeal to my fellow PCA elders.
Titus 1:9 speaks of those who are qualified for the office of elder this way: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” 
Since I met resistance to my speech at my presbytery meeting, I know that at least some of the REs and TEs who voted against the overtures understand they need to speak up.  They saw an RE encouraging a yes vote to the overtures, and they stood up and said something.  But I return to my question: Why didn’t all of the men who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?  Surely all elders have studied Titus 1:9 as they were considering their own qualifications to become an elder.
I anticipate readers of this article may be those very elders across all the presbyteries in the PCA.  Here then is my reminder of the command of Christ.  The elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught…”  He must also “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine.” And when the rubber hits the road, as it did during the latest presbytery meetings, he must “also rebuke those who contradict it.”  If the under-shepherd won’t rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, he is unqualified for the office of elder.
So then, to those who silently voted in favor of the overtures; why do you remain silent?  In our culture, a vote is considered such a personal and private thing, that many can hide behind their vote without worry of being confronted for it.  So you may have voted conservative, and no one questioned you about it. If you had spoken up to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, then you likely would get confronted.  And so what if that happened? We know that we are to fear God over men.  God calls for our faithfulness as shepherds.  And faithfulness means rebuking those who contradict sound doctrine.  Titus 1:9 does NOT read this way “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to cast a vote against those who contradict it.”
If God says we need to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, then we must do it.  It’s not an option.  It’s not reserved for those who don’t seem to care about burning bridges or eating their presbytery lunch by themselves.  We elders must be qualified to teach – which means that fear of speaking to a crowd is something that we’ve already gotten over.  God calls us not only to speak in front of a crowd, but also to speak what is necessary to the crowd – even to (and maybe especially to) a crowd of fellow elders.
Speaking words of rebuke to those who contradict sound doctrine is what we are called to do.  You must do it, not because some RE that you’ve never heard of says so, but because the qualifications for elder has been revealed in the perfect and infallible Word of our Lord.  If you maintain that you are qualified for the office of elder, but refuse to say something when you see something, then either Jesus is wrong or you’re wrong.
And so I ask the question a final time: Why didn’t all of the elders who voted in favor of the overtures take the opportunity to speak up during the discussion?  If you are a conservative elder in the PCA, are you not concerned that these overtures failed?  If you are not concerned, why did you vote in favor of the overtures?  If you are concerned, then what are you concerned about?  Are you concerned that some elders in the PCA are contradicting sound doctrine?  Then read Titus 1:9 again.
Matt Balocca is a Ruling Elder in Grace Presbyterian Church in Fresno, Calif.

With a few careless words conflict so quickly rages out of control. Thus, Proverbs urges, in conflict, to speak gentle and wise words that please the Lord and bring healing, rather than gushing harsh and foolish words that anger the Lord and crush those around us.

In the 1970s a professor by the name of Albert Mehrabian proposed his famous 7-38-55 rule of communication. When we communicate our likes and dislikes, the listener’s acceptance of our communication will depend 7 percent on our words, 38 percent on our tone of voice, and 55 percent on our facial expressions and body language.
If I say, “I love pickled herring,” and my voice is slow and monotone and my face looks like a pickled herring, then, despite my words, you won’t put pickled herring out on the table next time we have breakfast together—unless you have a mischievous streak. And if I hear you tell me that you “have no problem with me” with an upbeat voice, but your arms are crossed and you are making overly intense eye contact, then I won’t be convinced.
Texting is less demanding than face-to-face communication.
This means that face-to-face communication is costly, because I know that you are weighing not just my words but also the tone of my voice and my body language. I am going to get an immediate—possibly uncomfortable—response from you. Is this why we prefer less demanding forms of communication? Like a phone call—or even a text?
On the flip side, with face-to-face communication there is far less room for misunderstanding. Even if I don’t get my words exactly right, my tone of voice and expressions will fill in the gap, clarify, or even correct my inadequate or poorly chosen words. Then again, maybe I don’t want you to hear my tone of voice or to see my body language. Perhaps it would say too much…
Texting is especially open to causing misunderstanding.
So although communicating by telephone may be less costly—because you are not seeing and weighing my expressions—it is also more open to misunderstanding. And communicating by email or text is the least costly form of communication: I don’t have to open up my expressions or even my tone of voice to your scrutiny. But I am now 93 percent open to being misunderstood. You have only my bare words, unqualified, unenhanced, and uncorrected by my non-verbal communication.
Now how is this going to work out in a society that is increasingly isolationist and wary of face-to-face contact and where even phoning someone is becoming rare? Research shows that phone apps are only the fifth most used app on smartphones, and I am told that Millennials dislike being called and prefer only text. In fact, they consider it a little rude to be called without prior warning via text!
The LORD has something to say about speaking in the book of Proverbs. His words, written some three thousand years ago, still apply whether we are speaking, writing letters, writing emails or texts, or posting on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter.
The Bible has a lot to say about the power of speech.
First, consider the Bible’s teaching on the power of speech.

And God said, “Light be.”And light was (Gen 1:3).

When God speaks, light and galaxies and teaming life burst into existence. His words are that powerful. And a word from Jesus could kill a fig tree, calm a storm, and raise a rotting corpse to life.
And our words, like those of our heavenly Father whose image we bear, have power to them. They can’t create ex nihilo, but they can build up and tear down. They can create and destroy. They can bring a torrent of good or evil. James tells us that just as a tiny spark can set ablaze a great forest, so too can the tongue set the whole course of a person’s life on fire.
Our words can do tremendous good or harm.
Very powerful things can do tremendous good or tremendous harm, and so they need to be tamed and controlled and directed in the right way. Proverbs addresses the tongue in the same way it addresses everything, by looking first at the heart.

The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked. (Prov. 10:11)

When a person has a righteous heart, then their mouth is a “fountain of life.” Their words transform what is saline and dead into something fresh and teaming with life. This makes me think of Ezekiel’s river, flowing east out of God’s Temple, and raising abundant life wherever it goes.
Read More

Written by Stephen O. Presley |
Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Zwingli the Pastor shows that pastors are as important today as they were in Zwingli’s time. The pastor has an essential role in times of crisis. As Eccher tells us, Zwingli preached powerful sermons to rally people to theological reform for the sake of gospel renewal. Some were so persuasive that his audience ascribed to him a near-prophetic quality. Pastors are the ones God calls to faithfully shepherd his people with virtuous persuasion. But Zwingli wasn’t a perfect pastor, and that’s the point.

On October 11, 1531, Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531) died on the battlefield after his Zurich battery was routed by Catholic forces at Kappel. He went into battle believing that God would sustain them—a devastating miscalculation. The accounts of his death vary dramatically. According to one report, the Catholics who found his lifeless body staged a posthumous mock trial, hurling insults at him and condemning him for various offenses. He was then beheaded, quartered, and burned, an unsanctimonious ending to one of the magisterial reformers.
Other reports give different accounts of the events—some fantastical. One suggests he lived long enough to make a dramatic defense of his views under interrogation, while another tale describes how his heart was salvaged from the ashes of his burning body, symbolizing the passion and purity of his message. Discerning truth from somewhat murky history exemplifies the challenge of recounting the complex and fascinating story not only of Zwingli’s death but also of his life.
In his book Zwingli the Pastor: A Life in Conflict, Stephen Brett Eccher includes the many “paradoxes and ironies” that make Zwingli a complex and controversial figure (2). Eccher is honest about the Swiss reformer’s successes and failures and finds lessons in them all. Zwingli’s life is often misunderstood and overshadowed by the other enormous figures of the Reformation, but alongside them, Eccher reminds us that Zwingli labored to see the same kinds of reforms that began from the milieu of Renaissance humanism.
Return to Scripture
Modern-day humanism is different from Renaissance humanism. The former is an “ideology,” while the latter was a “pedagogy.” The Renaissance humanism Zwingli soaked up aimed at personal transformation, primarily through the Scriptures and the wisdom of the tradition. His education led to deep learning of ancient literature and Scripture encouraged Zwingli to trust the Bible and to challenge contemporary assumptions about its interpretation.
According to Eccher, associate professor of Reformation Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Zwingli was convinced Scripture is “literally God’s word” (21). Zwingli believed his people needed to hear God’s Word more than anything else; only Scripture would bring life and renewal. To that end, he made the radical decision, following the example church fathers such as Chrysostom, to preach through books of the Bible (lectio continua), rather than sticking to the standard lectionary readings.
“This decision was a stunning revelation to those present,” Eccher writes, “and was the first formal liturgical change ushered in by Protestantism” (59). At times, especially early in his preaching career, he preached on themes or topics that addressed cultural issues, but eventually, he gravitated toward “an evangelical gospel message,” the kind of message that stirred the hearts and lives of the people under his pastoral care (12).
Zwingli’s humanist education enhanced his preaching with good rhetorical and oratory practices so that a “winsome use of words characterized his preaching” (24). He combined rhetoric with his practical experiences, such as his time on the battlefield, which helped him connect with his audience.
Eccher identifies two key themes that colored Zwingli’s biblical interpretation and subsequently shaped his preaching: clarity and certainty. The former stressed the “Spirit’s determinate power to illuminate,” while the latter implied the “power of Scripture” (37). He combined these points with a Christocentric focus and with what Zwingli called “the Rule of Faith and Love” (45). “Initially surfacing in Zwingli around 1524,” Eccher writes, “this rule established charitas (‘love’) as an axiomatic grid of interpretation that helped to embody the practice of neighbor love in a diverse era” (45).
Read More
Related Posts: