Culture⤒🔗

On this occasion I want to address the question of where we go from here as a church. I’m sure we are all conscious of the considerable difficulties we face in the cultural climate in which we are at the mo­ment in Australia. There is the widespread rejection of any objec­tive truth (except the insistence that there is no objective truth!); atheism is showing crusading zeal; the very notion of traditional marriage is widely rejected; the charismatic movement, in forms such as the ‘prosperity gospel’, has deceived many and wrought confusion; the per­centage of census ad­herents of any form of Christianity in Austra­lia is now about 65% of the population;¹ the typical Sunday at­tendance has declined by about a third in the past 25 years, from 12% to 8%, of the population; and other world religions have a much stronger pres­ence in our multicul­tural society than in earlier years.

A possible reaction to this massive cultural shift could be a polari­zation to extremes rather well captured in another context by the poet W.B. Yeats.

Things fall apart; the centre can­not hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

What concerns me is the danger that ‘we rage, rage against the dy­ing of the light’ — if I may apply Dy­lan Thomas’s memorable words to the death of our accustomed cul­ture rather than to old age and the inevitability of death. We can see our mission as a church in terms of the preservation of our culture with a passionate intensity, rather than the proclamation of the Gospel with a passionate intensity. A flurry of petitions to Government and con­demnatory statements on moral evils may make us feel we are doing good, and of course there are occasions for humble advice to the authorities, particularly in a democ­ratic society, but this is not our main task as a church. When we stand against abortion or homo­sexuality, let us remember that we seek to win for Christ people who have involvement in such things, and also to minister to people in our congregations who may be trauma­tised by past experiences. Of course there is the opposite danger of retreat into a cosy corner, letting the world rush by to perdition, and so again we deny our calling to be salt, a city on a hill-top, the light of the world.

Given that in significant ways our society is increasingly like the world of the New Testament, let’s look at how Paul regarded the pagan culture of his day.

First, Paul was a bridge builder to pagans in his evangelistic endeavours. In Athens he was provoked in heart (Acts 17:16) by the idolatry he saw. He didn’t soft — pedal the gospel as he debated with the intellectuals of the day, but he did seek to engage the Athenians. In his address to them, he avoided rabble-rousing derogatory com­ments about their idols, and even quoted two of the Stoic poet-philosophers, Aratus and Cleanthes. All the central teachings of the gospel are there:

The nature of God as the sole transcendent and personal Creator; his control over the history of his creation; the universal nature of human beings as responsible to God and, though in a broken relationship with him, still designed to search and find God; the inevitable judgment of God; the mercy shown by God through the death and resurrec­tion of Jesus; and the necessity of all people everywhere to re­pent.²

These were not acceptable teachings in Paul’s cultural setting but they were given nonetheless, yet in a manner that sought to win the hearers without compromise. The same is true in Ephesus where Paul laboured for two years, making tents in the morn­ing and reasoning in the lecture hall in the afternoon. After the riot instigated by the silversmiths, the town clerk was able to say that Paul had not committed sacrilege or blasphemed their goddess (Acts 19:37), a statement which means at least that he had avoided an offensive and insulting manner of debate. We can be arrogant, ag­gressive and too clever by half, wanting to win the argument rather than win the person, satisfied with the sound of our own voice. This was not Paul’s way. In today’s Australia we can be so critical and fearful of people of Muslim back­ground that we are certainly not going to win them for Christ. We need to realise that the vast major­ity of Muslims in Australia do not attend the mosque, and will re­spond positively to your friendship and hospitality.

Second, Paul believed that Christians should have unbe­lieving relationships in work and society. I have heard it said, even occasionally in our own church, that Christians shouldn’t have any non-Christian friends. What does the Bi­ble say? Take Paul in 1 Corinthians. An earlier let­ter of Paul to the Corin­thians had been misunder­stood. He had told them not to mix with immoral people meaning the openly immoral who professed to be Christians, but some had thought he meant any immoral people at all. ‘No!’ says Paul. ‘If that is what I meant you’d have to go out of this world’ (1 Cor. 5:9­-12). The church must main­tain standards in its mem­bership, and discipline the morally delinquent, but there is no objec­tion to Christians mixing in every­day relationships with unbelievers. As well as the relatively respect­able there were the grossly im­moral in Corinthian society. For example, in Corinth there were temple-prostitutes associated with the pagan worship. You can mix with such people, is what Paul is saying; in fact, you couldn’t help it unless you left the world. In other words, just because there is an openly homosexual person in your work place is no reason to resign your position. And sure, invite the new Muslim refugees in the neighbourhood for a meal; just be mindful of their cultural prefer­ences about food, &c. when doing so.

Third, Paul believed that our happiness and comfort is not the big goal for life, but the glory of God. Paul was a Jew, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, learning at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). Of this leading member of the Sanhedrin the Jewish saying is, ‘When Teacher Gamaliel the Elder died, regard for the Torah ceased, and purity and piety died.’ Paul’s culture and language was Jewish, of the strictest sort, but as a Christian he sought to bridge cul­tural barriers for the sake of the gospel: ‘To all people I have become all things that I might save some,’ he writes (1 Cor. 9:22-23). The effort and discipline required to do this is reinforced by illustra­tions from sports-mad Corinth, the home of the Isthmian Games held there every two years. Paul says he beats his body into submission, he boxes to hit the target — not to beat the air. This conservative Jew become Christian may well have been including the effort required to improve his Greek, and to understand Gentile cul­ture, perhaps in the years he spent in Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1:21), so that he could carry out his mission to the Gentiles effec­tively. Too many professing Christianity are in reality focused on themselves and neglect the big issues of life. Paul reminds us: ‘Be very careful, then, how you live — not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is’ (Eph. 5:15-17).

We need a recovery in our church of this emphasis and this commitment. We rightly ac­knowledge Jesus Christ as Lord of all, but we cannot distort our emphasis on the obligation of the civil power to acknowledge and protect the Christian Faith so that we neglect our commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in our lives and in the church. Currently we live in a plural­istic society and in any event Christians are not made by state coercion. The principal founder of the PCEA, Rev. William McIntyre, put the mat­ter this way in his address as Moderator in 1842. The ad­dress was entitled The Weakness and Power of the Chris­tian Ministry, and had minis­ters particularly in mind, but the principle expressed is of wider application. Writing of our efforts to bring people into the Kingdom of God McIntyre says:

We are not warranted to expect the increase unless we apply the appointed means; and as it is not attached to every instance of the application of them, and we do not know what particular instance may be attended with it, the only course for us plainly is, to be in­stant in season and out of sea­son, to seize every opportunity in the hope it may prove an occasion for which the increase will be given. If we are negligent in the exercise of our ministry, we fail to the extent of that negligence, to open those channels through which the bless­ings of salvation are poured forth; and, therefore, to the same extent, our official conduct is calculated to prevent, appalling as the idea is, the salvation of those to whom we min­ister, and is as criminal and as much to be condemned as if it actu­ally had the effect of preventing it...

Taking then this biblical recogni­tion of the use of means in depend­ence on the Holy Spirit, let us look at how our polity, our church gov­ernment, can work for the further­ance of the mission of Christ’s peo­ple.

Leadership←⤒🔗

I’d like to focus now on we who claim to be leaders — ministers and elders in the church of God. Most of you will know that there is more than one understanding of the eldership.

1. There is the view of Charles Hodge that the ruling elder is merely a lay representative and that the minister is the true presbyter. This viewpoint was also held by a good number of the English divines at the Westminster Assembly, and is the most obvious reading of the Form of Church Government pro­duced by that body in 1644.
    
2. There is the view that all elders are in effect ministers, with the dif­ference simply one of gifts. This position ignores the fact that Scrip­ture knows of elders who are not called to labour in word and doc­trine.
    
3. There is the Scottish view­point, well illustrated in the Second Book of Discipline of 1578, which sees the ruling elder as a true pres­byter and the minister as also an elder who labours in preaching and teaching as well as sharing in rule with other elders.³ Now I don’t want to enter into the debate about whether there are three offices (minister, elder, deacon) or two (elder and deacon). So long as the minister (teaching elder) is seen as an elder distinguished from ‘the eld­ers who rule well’ by particular gifts and a calling to ‘labour in word and doctrine’ as well as to rule (1 Tim 5:17), the difference seems seman­tic. What I do want to suggest is a renewed appreciation of the roles of ministers and elders, and a structur­ing of leadership that is focussed on pastoral care and outreach.

First, let us consider the Qualifi­cations for eldership

The outline used in the Presbyte­rian Reformed Church of Australia provides a useful reminder of the qualities one is looking for in a can­didate for the ministry apart from the most fundamental of all — that he is a true believing Christian.

Academic Ability (1 Tim. 4:13­ 16; Luke 2:46-52; Acts 6:4): Is there evidence of an ability to study and complete a prescribed course?

Physical Circumstances (1 Cor. 6:19; Dan. 1:15; 1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Cor. 12:7): Such things as voice, sight, hearing, and physical constitution (whilst these factors are important, we need to remember that possess­ing a disability is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier to fulfilling the role of a Minister).

Emotional make-up and person­ality (Eph. 4:1-3,26-31; 1 Cor. 13; James 1:19,3:14-17; Titus 1:7- 8; 1Thess. 2:7; 2 Tim. 4:5-8): While each of us has differences, ex­cesses in mood swings, depression, volatility and other traits can be ru­inous in the ministry.

Family Relationships and Cir­cumstances (1 Tim. 3; Prov. 31:10ff.): Stability in these areas is vital, especially in view of the pressures involved with being in the ministry.

Relationships to and in the world (Luke 2:52; 1Tim.3; 1 Pet.2:12; 1John 2:15; 1 Cor. 10:31; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 4th Commandment): Is he employable and steady in em­ployment? Does he have a good testimony among those who are outside? What are his hobbies, pastimes, attitudes to alcohol, and smoking?

Financial Reliability (1 Tim. 5:8): Is he irresponsible? Careful? Conscientious? Miserly?

Christian Life (2 Pet. 3:18): Is he an active church member? Is he growing in grace? Does he instil enthusiasm in other Chris­tians? Does he have a zeal for souls?

Social Manner (3 John 1-8): Is he often ill at ease? Lacking so­cial experience?

Ease of Learning (Luke 2:52): Does he learn slowly? Is there reasonable application? Is he a ‘quick learner’?

Emotional Stability (2 Tim. 2:24-25): Is he subject to moods of depression or elation? Fairly well balanced? Even tempered? Is he well controlled and steady even under trying conditions?

Co-operation (Neh. 4:6): Is he interested only in himself? Does he show little interest in service activities? Does he co-operate in group enterprises?

Dependability (2 Tim. 4:11): Is he unreliable? Does he often make excuses? Does he fulfil obligations? Is he scrupulous and punctual in fulfilling obligations?

Initiative (Josh. 14:12): Does he work only under compulsion, or does he need frequent prodding? Does he do more than the as­signed work?

Industry (Phil. 1:27): Is he lazy? Does he do just enough to pass? A fairly good worker? A very hard worker?

Leadership (1 Cor. 4:16; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Tim. 5:17): Does he lead in group situations? Can he organise and direct oth­ers?

Personal Responsibility (2 Cor. 11:28): Is he willing to accept re­sponsibility for his actions or deci­sions, or does he look for some­one else to blame?

Attitude to Correction (Jas. 3:17): Is he resentful, indifferent or unapproachable?

Ability to ‘make a distinc­tion’ (Jude 22-23): Is he sensitive to consciences? Does he handle Christian liberty issues well? What about with weaker Christians?

It’s actually only in the last 30 years that we have required a much more detailed application form than the very limited details requested before that time. But a list such as just given, used in a proper way, can be a very helpful tool. In the business world considerable atten­tion is given to the selection proc­ess. While the professional qualifi­cations are important, a great deal hangs on the personal character and personality of the applicant, how he will fit into the organisation, and for good reason. In our church life we’ve not done too badly so far as doctrinal correctness is concerned, but we have had issues over difficult personalities. We are not alone of course. In his 2010 DMin. project, the Clerk of the Gen­eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria reviewed the 30 years since Church Union in 1977, and found that already at least 25% of the 125 graduates of the Presby­terian Theological College, Mel­bourne 1978-2005 have left the ministry due to stress, illness, lack of call or moral failure.⁴ That high failure rate is largely due, I think, to inadequate attention to the suitabil­ity of candidates and the lack of pastoral preparation. Even here we may not have done too badly, but that may be because unsuitable students drop out before completing their course, or worse still, because congregations have endured a min­ister’s eccentricities and failure in relationship building, and no action has resulted — apart from some leaving the congregation. However, the pressures are always present with ministers feeling frustration in small, often declining churches, which leads to them questioning their gifts, or the worth of exercising them.

My plea, then, is that we be very careful in assessing applicants for ministry in our churches, particularly in the light of the circumstances they are likely to experience in a small and widely scattered denomination. But if ministers need careful assessment it can hardly be much less for ruling elders. They are presbyters too, so, while not called to the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, they do need to be able to rule, and that requires mature and stable Christian character, gifts for exercising spiritual oversight, and competency in the teaching and application of Scripture to individu­als (‘apt to teach’, 2 Tim 2:24), men not argumentative or careless of their responsibilities under Christ.

Eldership is not simply a job; it’s a calling. It’s not wrong to desire it (1 Tim 3:1), and one desiring it should seek to grow in maturity as a Christian, so that when he is needed he will be available. But just as the norm for ministerial calling to the call of God, and the choice of the people recognising suitable gifts, so it is with the ruling elder. And here it is easy to go wrong. Just as congregations can too read­ily take the first minister who is available, so too, congregations can choose unsuitable persons for eldership. Hence the prohibition of setting apart a recent convert (1 Tim 3:6). The point is that the Lord gives gifted men for his church. As Lawrence Eyres of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church put it: ‘These gifts should be prayed for, devel­oped, and encouraged on the part of men in the church. This is God’s way.’⁵ This being so, we need training and preparation for the of­fice. Mostly we have relied on ex­perience in church life. It’s often worked well, but not always. As by God’s grace we grow as a church and new people join us, this training will be even more necessary. Of recent years we’ve run a couple of workshops along this line in South­ern Presbytery. All male members were invited, and of course no guar­antees are given or implied as to future leadership, but the work­shops provide something worth­while to all who participate. How­ever, there is much more to be done. In short, there are qualifica­tions for eldership, and training is needed, a point noted as long ago as1880 at the Second General Council of the Alliance of Re­formed Churches, of which the PCEA was then a member.⁶

In the second place, Eldership is a team ministry

The Second Book of Discipline (VI. 2) reminds us that the number of elders in a congregation cannot well be limited, but should be ac­cording to the bounds and neces­sity of the people. In practice it has often been the case that only the minimum requirement of two elders besides the minister has been appointed. Very frequently session minutes reveal that elec­tions are held when a quorum is in danger of being lost. There is not the regular endeavour to appoint additional elders as the Lord pro­vides gifted men. Elders should not all be older men but having some in their 20s, 30s and 40s along with older men is likely to be very advantageous.

Over the past 130 years the number of attendees in the Pres­byterian Church of Australia per elder has declined from some­thing approaching 100 to around 11, and our own figures are rather similar. No doubt there are a number of reasons for this, but one can hardly say we are in cor­respondingly better shape with the lower attendee: elder ratio. Is this because we have too often worked in practice on the lay rep­resentative theory of the elder­ship? We’ve perhaps thought of the elders as being there to greet people at the church door, to as­sist in communion, maybe to vote with the minister at Presbytery and Synod, and not a great deal more. We’re very thankful for those many elders and ministers who pursue their calling faithfully, often in a quiet and unobtrusive fashion. Still, over the years we’ve had some ministers throw­ing their weight around and treat­ing elders in a demeaning fashion, and vice versa. Is the under­standing of the different roles of minister and elder part of the problem?

Of course gifts vary, and this ob­vious fact, emphasised in Scrip­ture, suggests more not fewer elders. In the abundance of counsel­lors is safety (Proverbs 11:14). For in any group of men you will find different personalities as well as different gifts. You need these differences, for each has some­thing to contribute. You have the introvert and the extrovert; the slow and methodical as well as the impulsive and impatient; the crea­tive thinker and the practical or­ganiser; the natural leader and the somewhat indecisive; the recon­ciler and the polariser; the sociable and gregarious and the compulsive man of detail and order. So aim at more than the minimum number. Of course men of a certain person­ality type or socio-economic back­ground or who will always defer to the minister can be appointed — not a good proceeding. Given our belief in covenant theology one can expect more than one member of a particular family to sometimes hold office in the same congrega­tion at the same time, and care is needed to recognise the difficulties that can arise. Elders are account­able to Christ, not to other family members.

Small meetings are specially prone to eccentric decisions. So we must have mature Christian men in leadership, and hopefully more than two or three. More eld­ers means division of labour, and not just in regard to the number of households for which each has responsibility. For example, one elder might give leadership in Out­reach, another in Visitation and another have special responsibility for Youth. This can encourage men to accept eldership who are deterred by the thought they’ll need to be competent in every­thing. Non-elders could be co­-opted to assist and in this way re­ceive good preparation for even­tual office themselves. The Second Book also reminds us that ‘such a number of elders may be chosen in certain congregations, that one part of them may relieve another for a reasonable space, as was among the Levites under the law in the serving of the tem­ple’ (VI. 2). The same authority (VII. 17) reminds us that elders by reason of age or infirmity who are not able to carry out the work are not to be deposed but held in hon­our as emeritus elders.

We have considered the qualifi­cations for eldership, and that it is a team ministry. In the third place, There is a distinction in the eldership. All rule but not all labour in the word and doctrine.

Of course the minister is some­what in the limelight but in respect of the Session he is only the chair­ man. He may introduce busi­ness but has only a casting vote, and is otherwise equal in respect of ruling authority with the other elders. The elders are to watch diligently over the flock commit­ted to their charge, encourage the minister and seek the fruit in the people of the his teaching, assist in examining new commu­nicants and visiting of the sick, see that decisions of the higher courts are put into effect, and generally ensure good order and discipline in the congregation.

The minister has a specific role of conducting worship, preach­ing, teaching, administering the sacraments, and watching over the behaviour of his flock so that he can the better apply the Word to them, always striving to edify and conscientiously fulfil his duty as the Word of God prescribes. Although one well known Chris­tian leader, a minister who has chiefly engaged in writing books, recently said in all seriousness that ministers should not write books or serve on committees, a minister may, of course, do both, but he needs to be very careful that he does not neglect his pri­mary preaching and teaching work. Writing books can extend a man’s ministry, as it did with F. W. Boreham (1871-1959), a Bap­tist minister and last student rec­ommended by C.H. Spurgeon for his College, who is probably Aus­tralia’s largest selling author with over 50 books and millions in sales, but can also be a snare if one does not take care. Some committee work is necessary for smooth operation of important issues, but again care is needed to avoid being immersed in ad­ministration. Unhappily, the state of affairs is sometimes such that a minister has to take on too much. If along with this he has elders who do not encourage him, advise him and give con­structive criticism, he is in a lonely place and likely to be heading for a breakdown. This is not God’s plan for ministry. Similarly, if a minister is unwilling to receive advice or constructive criti­cism.

In the fourth place, The elders should meet regularly, at least monthly.

I confess I always wanted great detail in our Deacons’ Court min­utes in Melbourne as we were managing significant assets and a clear record was necessary for meeting our collective responsibil­ity, especially if I became incapaci­tated or died. However, I did not have very frequent Session meet­ings, although particularly in the early years of my Melbourne ministry we had an excellent Session and were able to ac­complish major work without all that much in the way of formal meetings. We trusted one an­other. However, in retirement I’ve changed my mind about the frequency of formal Session meetings as I’ve had responsi­bility as an elder at All Nations, mentoring Denver Boehret and assisting Rev. Tut Yoa. For a year or so we’ve met often fort­nightly, following the fellowship after the morning service. The meetings can be relatively short but they keep us in mind of our task of collective spiritual over­sight and planning for reaching out to the pagan world about us. Such regularity means greater account­ability for putting into effect earlier decisions, and keeps us up to date with the endeavours of individual elders. As elders we need to pray together, as well as for the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us overseers.⁷

Fifth and finally, a note on pas­toral visitation.

It is a common complaint that ‘ministers don’t visit nowadays’. I’ve even seen a pastoral letter by a professedly Reformed minister of another denomination (not rep­resented in this meeting), which justified by extraordinary argu­ments the absence of visitation by himself and the elders in the face of complaints that had come to his attention. (I wondered if his wife working outside the home was part of the explanation.) But this re­sponsibility of visitation belongs to all the elders. In the Christian Re­formed Churches a visitation to each family at least once a year is required. However, it is not work­ing very well of late. It sometimes seems like a formal ritual which doesn’t really get below the sur­face of particular needs, and Rev. Leo Douma of that denomination has written a valuable DMin. pro­ject on the subject.⁸ An elder — teaching or ruling — cannot be effective in visitation if he lacks em­pathy with people and is distant toward others. Effective visitation is built on positive relationships which, if anything, should be eas­ier to develop in small churches like our own. If elders pray for the people, if they take the opportunity of mingling with the congregation after the service, and are given to hospitality, as they should be, they’re well on the way. Watching for people’s souls is likely to be much more effective and accept­able in the less formal context of friendship and understanding. There are of course the obvious caveats of avoiding visiting fe­males on your own, the desirability of your wife accompanying you in certain situations, and generally going two by two in visitation. If the ruling elders are working men, visiting of the hospitalised and those not in the work force may largely fall on the minister. Of course, neither should one overlook the ministry of every believer.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

So what have we covered? We looked at our culture — noted it’s not dissimilar from that of Paul’s day, that we should build bridges into it without compromising the gospel rather than isolating our­selves, and that we need the big goal of God’s glory as our chief motivation so that we work hard to bring the Word of God to others. As we looked at leaders we noted the qualifi­cations for leadership, that we need to encourage men to develop their gifts, and that appropriate training for ruling elders and not just ministers is very important. We recog­nised that eldership is a team ministry and that while all ex­ercise pastoral oversight, not all labour in the word and doctrine as ministers. The Session needs to meet regu­larly, exercise collective spiri­tual oversight and commit to pastoral care of the people, not forgetting the important role of the ruling elders in encourag­ing and advising the minister, and providing pastoral care to him and his family. Division of the labour according to particular gifts is appropriate. We’ve scarcely touched the surface but I hope these thoughts will be help in challenging us to utilise our polity, the church govern­ment God has given, in ways that will fulfil its designed pur­pose.

Sure, there are many things that alarm us about our culture at present, but they must not un­nerve us. Courage, responsibil­ity and resolution are appropriate given our Saviour’s words in the Great Commission, a promise of his presence that is made in the context of a church going into all the world.

You will recall Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), the poet and writer. It is not always appreciated that he wrote his most famous poem ‘IF’ for his son but in effect as a tribute to his great friend Dr Leander Starr Jameson. Jameson was sent on a secret mission to overthrow Presi­dent Paul Kruger of the Transvaal Republic in December 1895, but when captured the British authori­ties denied all knowledge and Jameson was convicted of treason and imprisoned. Jameson never produced the evidence that would have shown the Government’s in­volvement, and demonstrated a nobility of spirit and honour that might shame us, seeing we serve a greater ruler than Queen Victo­ria. Later he was pardoned and had a successful career. With a bit of poetic licence at the end, allow me to quote Kipling’s poem:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream — and not make dreams your master;
If you can think — and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build’em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and­-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is noth­ing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings — nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving min­ute
With sixty seconds’ worth of dis­tance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And — which is more — you’ll be an
Elder, my brother!”

Yes, the eldership is demanding, but what a privilege to be called to serve in this way! Let us resolve that our Presbyterian Polity will operate for Progress. We will use all wise and godly means, prayer, planning, prayer, perspiration and prayer, to see fruit for God. With understanding, compassion and love shall we minister, always re­membering the effectiveness comes from God’s blessing: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord.’