For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has stayed orthodox thus far by God’s grace, not because of the superior godliness of its officers, still less because of its worship aesthetics, but because it has generally played by the rules and, more importantly, punished rather than rewarded those who break or subvert them.

In this final post in the series, I want to offer some brief, practical guidelines on how to help keep a church on the rails. Each could be a post in itself, but I have no wish to try your patience further. So, for what they are worth, here they are:

1. Guard your personal integrity and be honest about where you stand in relation to your vows.

Personal integrity in Presbyterianism is really very simple: if you change your mind relative to any point in the Westminster Standards or any other aspect of your subscription, just go to your elders and your presbytery and be honest about it. Your brothers can offer counsel and, if necessary, make the call on whether your change of mind is compatible with the laws and practice of the church.

Further, subscribe with passion and commitment. Do not simply sign on the dotted line in order to gain membership of the club, and then start asking, `OK, I have to sign up to this seventeenth-century malarkey to be a minister, but now what can I get away with doing? How can I bend or bypass the rules?’ That is a recipe for disaster. You should also avoid at all costs a quasi-DeGaullian `L’église: c’est moi!’ attitude, which identifies you, your ministry, your opinion, and your way of doing things with the future of the entire church. Presbyterianism is about the whole body. Despite what every instinct in your fallen nature tells you, it isn’t, never has been, and never will be, all about you.

2. Understand that sound preaching and earnest prayer are not enough to stop a denomination losing the plot or to turn it around once the rot has set in.

Life would be so much easier if preaching and prayer were, in themselves, enough to keep churches on the straight and narrow or to bring them back to orthodoxy, but they are not. One cannot, of course, maintain orthodoxy without them; but they do need to be supplemented with thoughtful action. Pray and preach – but keep your powder dry. Churches go bad for a myriad of reasons but not generally because heterodoxy just drops from the sky one morning and takes over the entire denomination before noon. To keep a church safe and sound, you need to understand the mechanisms of change and respond to them: thank God for successful pastors, but don’t idolize them; stand up to the bullies and the nose-thumbers, don’t reward them by changing the rules simply to avoid conflict; think long term when someone makes an apparently attractive proposal for change; and, above all, be good churchmen. Presbytery meetings and committees are not high on most of our lists of fun things to do with our spare time, but these are where the key decisions are usually made: therefore, you should be involved in them because, if you are not, then you must shoulder considerable responsibility if they fall into the wrong hands or make bad decisions. You should also know the rule book. I cannot stress that enough: whatever else you do, know the rule book. A Westminster colleague often says: one must realize that, in church debates, points of procedure always take precedence over points of theology. Sad, of course, but true. Take it into account when you enter the committee room or the presbytery chamber. You can safely assume that others will certainly do so.

3. Watch changes to the terms of confessional subscription very carefully.

Ian Hamilton’s excellent book, The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy (Christian Focus) is a most instructive historical study of how changes to the terms of subscription in various Presbyterian denominations were constitutive of the decline in orthodoxy within the same. Sometimes the changes were, in and of themselves, intended for good; but a generation or so down the line, the precedents these changes set or established had lethal consequences for the maintenance of the faith. This is why it is also important to observe carefully not just what decisions churches make, but how they make them. For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has stayed orthodox thus far by God’s grace, not because of the superior godliness of its officers, still less because of its worship aesthetics, but because it has generally played by the rules and, more importantly, punished rather than rewarded those who break or subvert them.

Even to make a decision which is, strictly and narrowly speaking, biblically sound, but to do so by circumventing the rules, or because one does not wish to stand up to a nose-thumber, can be as disastrous in the long run as positively legislating heterodoxy: it undermines due process and, as I argued in the second post, sets unfortunate precedents that will come back to haunt the church at a later date.

4. Do not be intimidated by the `we are just doing it for evangelism’ argument.

This is an old chestnut used by almost all – if not all – of those who have advocated for various changes throughout church history. It is a powerful rhetorical move, as it immediately places opponents in a hard place: to oppose the advocates of change is to be regarded as opposing evangelism. As a rule of thumb, the key question to ask is: are the changes being proposed really matters indifferent, mere cosmetic changes, or do they require an alteration of theological principle? If they are merely cosmetic, then pragmatic arguments such as the above are clearly legitimate. If, however, the proposed changes actually involve theological principles (e.g., `we need to stop believing this or preaching that, because, if we don’t, we will be looked upon as idiots/bigots/cultists/just a wee bit weird’) then purely pragmatic arguments are likely in the long run to prove to be Trojan Horses for more serious change. It is vital to be able to discern the difference between cosmetic and principial changes or the church will well and truly lose the plot.

5. If you are called to be a leader, then be a leader, not a statesman.

The church is full of men who want positions of prestige, profile and responsibility, but who do not want to take the tough stands that such positions demand. It is easy to defend the faith in front of an audience of six hundred adoring fans at a conference; it is not so easy to stand for principle in a room full of two dozen indifferent or hostile colleagues. Sorry – if you want the position of responsibility, then silence on the hard issues in the hostile context is not an option.

Further, if there is one thing worse than the minister who talks a good game to his fan base but is as much use as a chocolate spanner in a conflict, it is the professional statesman. This is the patrician figure who makes a career out of triangulating in debates, often doing so by setting the alleged poor theology of one side against the alleged bad attitude of the other in a kind of moral equivalence. This then allows him to justify not taking sides and to rise above the fray. No doubt as he goes bed each night, he thanks God that he is not like other men, for he has clean hands and finely manicured nails, unlike the troublers of Israel around him; but, as I have said before on Ref21, he can only sleep peacefully at night because many of those same troublers of Israel have broken their nails and bloodied their fists in making the streets outside his house safe for women and children.

In fact, true statesmen earn the right to be statesmen by first of all leading their people through battles and conflicts. Think of Athanasius, of Luther, of Chalmers, of Machen – all risked everything they had, and were targets of the harshest disdain even from within the church, but they stood firm on principle and led their people through the wilderness. Too many today want to take a shortcut to the position, to be admired for nothing more than landing the high profile job in the first place. Forget statesmanship: if you are a minister, act like a minister, and do not use pretentions to statesmanship as a cover for your own weakness.

So, to conclude this series, keeping a church on the rails is actually quite easy: honor your vows and do not cross your fingers; be honest with your people and your presbytery if and when your views change; know – and follow – the rules; pray and preach in a sound, godly fashion; and lead as you are called. Above all, understand that complacency – personal and corporate – kills. It leaves the field open to the activists; and activists are, by and large, highly organized and effective, and only follow the rules as and when it suits their cause. You need to work twice as hard as they do to keep the ship afloat; but that is a high calling indeed.

Carl R Trueman is Departmental Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He has an MA in Classics from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in Church History from the University of Aberdeen. He is editor of the IFES journal, Themelios, and has taught on the faculties of theology at both the University of Nottingham and the University of Aberdeen. This article is reprinted from the Reformation 21 blog and is used with their permission. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/