Neal Jackson Resigns from Pensacola's Campus Church after 2 1/2 Years

Back to is the Campus Church a “church”

Here’s what is on record with the Florida Department of State’s Division of Corporations:

• “Campus Church” is registered as a Fictitious Name owned by (a subsidiary of) PCC: http://sunbiz.org/pdf/48740164.pdf [Notice Arlin Horton’s signature on the application form.]
  
• So with the Campus Church as a wholly-owned subsidiary of PCC; then the question arises “Who/what constitutes the governance of PCC?”: http://sunbiz.org/pdf/50749085.pdf
  

Of the seven corporate officers/directors listed, there are 5 men & 2 women. Arlin Horton is listed as President & a Director. The two women are Beka Horton (listed as Secretary, Treasurer, & Director); and a Virginia Kilpatrick (listed as a Director).

So of the seven persons that serve as the de facto, legal, governing board of the Campus Church: two are women.

So under the Baptistic, complementarian understanding of N.T. church Eldership, this doesn’t appear to qualify.

This being said, if they want to have a mass meeting on Sunday mornings, good for them. But please don’t call yourself a church!

What does this have to do with the original post (because I suspect there are some who will object): Dr. Neal Jackson’s did not resign from a real church.

I’d think the Campus Church a true, though irregular, church. A true church may be defined as a church that preaches the gospel and administers the ordinances; an irregular church is one whose practice is against Scripture - and in this category I would include churches, such as the Campus Church, with unbiblical polity.

I agree with those who argue that colleges should cease holding services and that students should attend local churches. My concern is not so much a sacredness of Sunday morning (as opposed to Sunday evening) as the ability for students to be deeply involved and known by a body of believers committed to each others’ care. Some may see the Christian college as a suitable substitute, but I see no warrant for that in Scripture.

When I was in college, I attempted to develop some relationships in the church I faithfully attended on Sunday night for three years. Whether due to my own ineptitude, attitudes toward the transiency of the student population, or some other cause, I was never able to develop meaningful non-student relationships there.

While the student population is fairly small at my current church, there are a lot of military folks and others who tell us up front that they will be with us a very short time. Our elders explicitly and repeatedly remind us to seek out these brothers and sisters so that we can know them and edify one another while they are a part of the congregation. I am heartened by this emphasis and, despite it’s potential to be emotionally exhausting, find it to be very spiritually encouraging as God’s sovereignty in our lives is continually demonstrated.

[Jim Peet]
What does this have to do with the original post (because I suspect there are some who will object): Dr. Neal Jackson’s did not resign from a real church.

I agree- IMO it was a staff position, not a pastorate.

[Jim Peet] Of the seven corporate officers/directors listed, there are 5 men & 2 women. Arlin Horton is listed as President & a Director. The two women are Beka Horton (listed as Secretary, Treasurer, & Director); and a Virginia Kilpatrick (listed as a Director).

So of the seven persons that serve as the de facto, legal, governing board of the Campus Church: two are women.

So under the Baptistic, complementarian understanding of N.T. church Eldership, this doesn’t appear to qualify.

Jim,

You are basing your argument upon several debatable presuppositions. To whit, that elders are responsible for governance and thus that women are not supposed to have a say in church governance. To the first I would note that your garden variety fundamentalist church does not live up to your ideal. In most American fundamentalist churches the elders serve at the consent of the congregation. We have adopted a Lockean, republican form of church government. The laity elects the clergy, thus the true governors of the church are its people. Now, I would be truly impressed if you can find support for a republican form of church government in the New Testament.

As concerns your second presupposition, that women ought have no say in church governance, I would note that at least half (and often significantly more than half) of the voting members of the laity is female. A democracy, even a republic, is rule by the majority. Thus women govern most modern-day fundamentalist churches.

This pattern is confirmed by church history. Read the journal of the Wesleys or of Joseph Pilmore who regularly relied upon the hospitality of wealthy widows for local church meetings. It is beyond belief to think that these influential women monetarily supported these evangelists, housed local churches, and gave large amounts to church charities without exercising some type of de facto governance. This also appears to have been a NT phenomenon (see Nympha in Col 4:15).

All that to say, that your given contention for why PCC’s Campus Church is not a church is built on shaky grounds. This does not make me a supporter of the Campus Church per se, I simply think that there are more accurate and efficient critiques. For instance, the Campus Church is more similar in form to an Established Church than the independent Baptist churches from which it draws most of its (involuntary) congregants. It is amusing to think of the Campus Church and PCC as a kind of hyper-Anglicanism with the good Dr. Arlin Horton as the Archbishop (though Rowan Williams can only fantasize about having so much personal control!). (-;

[Paul Matzko]

[Jim Peet] Of the seven corporate officers/directors listed, there are 5 men & 2 women. Arlin Horton is listed as President & a Director. The two women are Beka Horton (listed as Secretary, Treasurer, & Director); and a Virginia Kilpatrick (listed as a Director).

So of the seven persons that serve as the de facto, legal, governing board of the Campus Church: two are women.

So under the Baptistic, complementarian understanding of N.T. church Eldership, this doesn’t appear to qualify.

Jim,

You are basing your argument upon several debatable presuppositions. To whit, that elders are responsible for governance and thus that women are not supposed to have a say in church governance. To the first I would note that your garden variety fundamentalist church does not live up to your ideal. In most American fundamentalist churches the elders serve at the consent of the congregation. We have adopted a Lockean, republican form of church government. The laity elects the clergy, thus the true governors of the church are its people. Now, I would be truly impressed if you can find support for a republican form of church government in the New Testament.

Paul, I find plenty of evidence for congregationalism (not necessarily a “republican form of church government”) in the NT.

[Paul Matzko]
In most American fundamentalist churches the elders serve at the consent of the congregation. We have adopted a Lockean, republican form of church government. The laity elects the clergy, thus the true governors of the church are its people. Now, I would be truly impressed if you can find support for a republican form of church government in the New Testament.

Well, I’m not sure if it’s necessarily “Lockean.” Calvin, in his commentary on Acts 14:23, states that the Greek word χειροτονεω refers to appointment by raising hands (voting), and that the people had free choice of their elders, though Paul and Barnabas acted as “chief moderators.” Calvin, of course, predates Locke by a century. Presbyterians have followed this practice, and I don’t think they picked it up from Locke, since the Scottish Covenanters were monarchists.

[Charlie] Calvin, in his commentary on Acts 14:23, states that the Greek word χειροτονεω refers to appointment by raising hands (voting), and that the people had free choice of their elders, though Paul and Barnabas acted as “chief moderators.”

I only did one year of Greek in college so I’m completely unqualified to judge whether Calvin is correct in his interpretation. Did xeipotoneo mean raising hands in Koine or is Calvin’s definition culturally influenced? I do know that Calvin was strongly influenced by Renaissance humanism / scholasticism which had roots in Florentine republicanism. In fact, while at the humanist Collège Royal in Paris Calvin studied with several notable French republicans.

If Calvin’s definition of xeipotoneo is correct than I’ve little room to stand on, but my prima facie reading of Acts 14:22-23 seems to indicate that Paul and Barnabas selected the leaders: “And when they [Paul and Barnabas] had appointed elders for them in every church…”

I shouldn’t have used “Lockean” in this context. I was aware that he post-dates Calvin, but most of the ideas that compose our modern form of republicanism which we ascribe to Locke predate the man himself. I should have just left it at republicanism for clarity.

Liddell and Scott indicate this sense, as do a number of other Greek scholars.

[QUOTE] χειροτονέω, f. ήσω, (χειρότονος) to stretch out the hand, for the purpose of voting, Plut., Luc.
II. c. acc. pers. to vote for, elect, properly by show of hands, Ar., Dem.:—Pass. to be elected, Ar., etc.; χειροτονηθῆναι, election, was opp. to λαχεῖν, appointment by lot, Plat., etc.
2. c. acc. rei, to vote for a thing, Dem.; so c. inf. to vote that. . , Aeschin.:—Pass., κεχειροτόνηται ὕβρις εἶναι it is voted, ruled to be violence, Dem. Hence χειροτονητός

H.G. Liddell, A Lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996), 885.[/QUOTE]

The word is used quite infrequently in the NT, but in classical and Hellenistic Greek means to vote or to elect by voting, possibly literally by the stretching out (τονος) of the hand (χειρ). There are a few references in Hellenistic Greek in which a vote does not appear to be in view, such as “to be appointed (χειροτονεισθαι) as king by God,” but such appear to be in the minority. I think most lexicographers agree that election by vote is the most likely meaning.

Who is doing the stretching out of the hand? Whose vote matters? The verse seems to indicate a vote of two (Paul and Barnabus). :-) Why can’t we read it as paul and barnabus stretching out their hand and pointing out the new elders?

Anywho, I’ve gotten off track of my main point. Even if Acts 14: 23 does indicate congregational voting in a manner similar to today (which I am still uncertain of), the bigger question is whether this should be taken as a normative pattern. Is the election of elders a universal, Biblically-prescribed norm for the Church in all ages? That broader question would seem nearly impossible to prove.

[Paul Matzko] Who is doing the stretching out of the hand? Whose vote matters? The verse seems to indicate a vote of two (Paul and Barnabus). :-) Why can’t we read it as paul and barnabus stretching out their hand and pointing out the new elders?

Anywho, I’ve gotten off track of my main point. Even if Acts 14: 23 does indicate congregational voting in a manner similar to today (which I am still uncertain of), the bigger question is whether this should be taken as a normative pattern. Is the election of elders a universal, Biblically-prescribed norm for the Church in all ages? That broader question would seem nearly impossible to prove.

I’m not sure what your main point is, but all church polities are grouped under 3 major headings - episcopacy, independency, and presbyterianism. Episcopacy appoints from the top down (which means you need a top), independency elects directly form the congregation, and presbyterianism requires a college of existing elders to approve new teaching elders but (usually) allows congregations to choose their own elders out of the available candidates. Ruling elders are selected directly from the congregation. So except for in episcopal systems, the congregation ultimately decides who the elders are.

[Charlie] I’m not sure what your main point is

My original goal was to counter Jim Peet’s contention that governance by elders is the central component of the NT church. Since then I got off topic and started contending about church polity, which was not my intention and outside of my specialty.

Perhaps I should have instead just suggested that these women on the Campus Church board were functionally deaconesses and left the matter there. :-)

I think the best point made so far was by Jack. Traditionally, within the category of “true” (gospel-preaching, sacrament-administering) churches is the further division of “regular” (how my group thinks church should be done) vs. “irregular” (all the others). I think most on here would agree that the Campus Church is “irregular” and ought to reform itself to be more “regular” (by somebody’s definition), but that doesn’t mean it’s not a true church.

[Charlie] I think the best point made so far was by Jack. Traditionally, within the category of “true” (gospel-preaching, sacrament-administering) churches is the further division of “regular” (how my group thinks church should be done) vs. “irregular” (all the others). I think most on here would agree that the Campus Church is “irregular” and ought to reform itself to be more “regular” (by somebody’s definition), but that doesn’t mean it’s not a true church.

Several posts back I think I used the terms “pseudo church” and “quasi church”… I do think “irregular” is better.

(And, I think I probably incorrectly referred to BJU’s approach as “require everyone to go.” I believe there were, and are, conditions that would allow you to attend somewhere else on Sun AM. Someone has probably already posted the facts on that point.)

[Aaron Blumer] [ I believe there were, and are, conditions that would allow you to attend somewhere else on Sun AM. Someone has probably already posted the facts on that point.)

I wish I had known of these conditions when I was a student. I’ve been to funerals that are more lively than the Sunday Mass at BJU!!