Tag Archives: Abuse

The Use and Abuse of ‘Superiors, Inferiors, or Equals’

Posted on by
Reply
Painting by John Rogers of debate in the Westminster Assembly on a portion of the Confession of Faith. Insert: Title page of the first printing of the Shorter Catechism for members of Parliament

What Don’t the Westminster Catechisms Say?

“The Westminster Shorter Catechism speaks of the husband as superior to the wife, and of lay people as inferior to their leaders” state Michael Foster and Dominic Bnonn Tennant in their popular book, It’s Good To Be a Man.[1] Prior to reviewing the book, when I suggested to one of the authors that the Shorter Catechism lacks that statement,[2] I was told that the intended reference is to the Larger Catechism and that the correction will be made. However, as I pointed out in my review, while Q. 64 speaks of “preserving the honor, and performing the duties, belonging to every one in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals” (and Q. 123–133 of the Larger Catechism use similar language), neither those answers, nor any others in the catechisms describe “the husband as superior to the wife” or “lay people as inferior to their leaders.”[3] Messrs. Foster and Tennant appear to be appealing to the catechetical language of “superiors, inferiors, or equals” to support their view of the inferiority of wives and of those holding the general office of believer, although, since neither catechism states what they suggest, their argument lies somewhere on the spectrum between sloppy writing and improper use of sources.

            While the example above is blatant, one does not have to spend extended time on social media to realize that those authors are not alone in seeing the phrase in the catechisms as supporting the view that husbands are superior to their wives, or even that women are ontologically inferior to men. Is that a proper use of the Westminster Catechisms? Or is it a misuse, possibly even an abuse, of those standards?

Catechisms, a glance at history

            Why do the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms use the language of “superiors, inferiors, or equals” with reference to the Fifth Commandment, particularly when some earlier catechisms of the Reformation did not?

Continue reading →

Further Thoughts on Protecting the Sheep

Posted on by

Last week I reflected on the responsibility of a presbytery to protect sheep who are being attacked. A number of readers expressed appreciation. I was also contacted by a half dozen or so members of the presbytery involved. A couple of them asked that I modify or take down the post. Several raised concerns and questions, wondering if I properly reflected the context of what happened.

I appreciated the conversations. Even though we may not have convinced one another, we were able to have good communication. I told the brothers that I would give prayerful consideration to their concerns. Upon reflection, while I am not persuaded that I should withdraw my post, I want to add this, both to correct some possible misunderstandings and to respond to a couple of the more major concerns raised.

Continue reading →

When Shepherds Allow the Sheep to Be Attacked

Posted on by
23

The calling of a shepherd, by definition, is to care for the sheep. That includes nurturing, feeding, and protecting. On occasion, if the sheep is straying, it can involve correction and discipline. But attacking or abusing the sheep violates that calling and is offensive to the Good Shepherd.

At a recent meeting of a presbytery (not my own), as was reliably reported to me, a young minister, speaking on the floor of the meeting, used the terms a “ruthless wolf” and “Jezebel” to describe a member of the denomination who was not present, a member in good standing. The presbytery meeting, as is normal in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, was open to the public.

My purpose here is not to comment further on the speaker—I don’t think I need to. He may be facing ecclesiastical charges, and I abhor doing church discipline on social media. In any case, he will be afforded due process which he fails to grant the sister whom he attacks.

What appalled me is that, although two presbyters rose to object to that language being used against a member in good standing, the presbytery allowed the speech to continue. While the speaker is accountable for his choice of words, the body as a whole bears responsibility for what it allows as acceptable ecclesiastical discourse. The terms used refer to enemies of the cross. The presbytery permitted them in an attack on a sister who is a member in good standing.

Any attack by a shepherd against the sheep is abhorrent. But when a body which is a group of shepherds allows that kind of speech, it is giving tacit approval to abuse. Addressing my fellow presbyters, this ought not to be. Not only do we need to guard our own tongues and pens (and fingers on keyboards), but we need to take responsibility for what we allow as acceptable discourse. To my brothers in the presbytery involved, I plead with you: you can do better than this.

A presbytery allowing this kind of language on the floor is not the core of the problem. Behind it lie some deep issues, including whether we value one another, male and female, as fellow images of God, and whether we are using our ecclesiastical authority to serve the flock (for which the Good Shepherd laid down his life) or to protect ourselves. Our heart issues will not be resolved by sustaining points of order. But that might be a small, but significant, first step.

Peter addresses those he calls fellow elders: “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” (1 Peter 5:2–4, ESV)