Volume 8: Issue 5 | November 2025
Book Review, Part II:
A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons
By Brian Schwertley, 1998
In his book on women deacons, Schwertley uses a quasi-Roman Catholic approach. First, he studies post-apostolic church sources. Then he uses that “tradition” to inform his interpretation of the Bible. Schwertley omits contrary evidence, like the preacher John Chrysostom’s commentary on I Timothy. Nevertheless, Schwertley gives his readers interesting sources to consider as he argues his case that ancient deaconesses originated with the indigent, over 60-year-old widows of I Timothy 5 rather than from the women of I Timothy 3:11.
Schwertley’s accusatory historical account of the 1888 RPCNA acceptance of women deacons is less well done. In fact, it is poorly done. Schwertley asserts, “The reason that many Presbyterians wanted to open the office of deacon to women had very little to do with the biblical evidence, which is lacking, and very much to do with the cultural climate at the time” (Schwertley p. 54). It was “the spirit of the age (p. 57).” True, Christian women in the 1880s were publicly active in reform organizations like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). True, women outnumbered men in many churches. True, Wyoming in 1869 had given women the vote in political elections. However, correlation is not causation. A similar charge could be made against Schwertley himself: he rejects women deacons because he rejects the “cultural climate” of his time, “the spirit” of our age.
To wit: some in our day oppose women deacons, not because of the biblical evidence, or because women deacons have caused problems in our Church, but in reaction to the secular feminism of our age. From 1890 until 2000, RPCNA leaders voiced almost no opposition to women deacons. But as secular feminists multiplied their absurd excesses and liberal Protestant churches put women and gays in their pulpits, opponents of women deacons reacted against the feminist spirit of the age. Does that accusation sound fair? It might to some people. With the terms reversed, it is the charge that Schwertley makes against the 1888 Synod (see Matthew 26:52). However, “spirit of the age” explanations are not determinative. The issue is, “What does the Bible say?”
Does Schwertley have evidence for a “spirit of the age” influencing Synod in 1888? Yes, sort of. He devotes over two pages to quoting the Rev. D. S. Faris in opposition to Synod’s decision. Faris voted with the minority twenty per cent. Schwertley also quotes an outlier, the Rev. T. P. Wylie, the lone voice in the Synod who hoped women would soon be preachers. Wylie left the RPCNA in 1891 to join the Presbyterian Church, a fact Schwertley neglects to tell his readers.
But did anyone write reasons for supporting Synod’s 1888 decision? Yes. Does Schwertley quote them, or at least summarize their reasoning? No. The Rev. D. B. Willson, President of the RP Seminary, wrote his reasons for supporting women deacons in the avowedly conservative The Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter. The Rev. James Kennedy, an eminent scholar and theologian as Faris called him, wrote in the avowedly more progressive Our Banner. So did the eminent Philadelphia pastor, the Rev. T. P. Stevenson. All three men wrote long articles. Later in his book, Schwertley argues piecemeal with Willson’s interpretations of relevant Bible passages, but he never deals with his argument head-on. As for Kennedy, who was on the Synod Judicial Committee that recommended approval of women deacons, Schwertley virtually ignores him, as he does Stevenson.
Schwertley writes like an old-fashioned Marxist historian who knows that class interests always determine what people think and do, so there is no need to hear what they say! However, a writer who attacks the teaching of his own church in print should respect the former generation with whom he disagrees to this extent at least: interact with what men like D.B. Willson, James Kennedy, and T.P. Stevenson wrote. Schwertley neglected to do that, only quoting their antagonist D.S. Faris at length. All in all, Schwertley’s historical account of why the RP Synod of 1888 approved women deacons is more than disappointing. It is historical malpractice.
Happily, the Rev. Bryan Schneider has made a good start in remedying Schwertley’s prejudicial omissions. In the May/June 2025 issue of the RP Witness, he summarized some of the reasoning of Willson and Kennedy. No, they were not suffering from “the overflow of sentimentalism,” Faris’ colorful characterization of Synod’s 1888 decision. Yes, they emphatically rejected any notion of women preachers. Yes, they argued from Scripture, not relying on later Christian history to tell them how to interpret the Bible. I encourage readers to read Schneider’s article. (Schneider includes the complete texts of the articles by Willson, Kennedy, Stevenson, Faris, and Wylie, in the October 2024 Gentle Reformation (https://gentlereformation.com/2024/10/23/women-and-the-deacons-office/).
Besides omitting discussion of Willson, Stephenson, and Kennedy’s stated reasons for approving women deacons, Schwertley makes a further historical error. He claims that the “slippery slope” of women deacons leading to women preachers almost happened in the Covenanter Church in the late 1930s. No, it did not. The RP Church then had three offices, Minister of the Word, Ruling Elder, and Deacon. In the 1930s, it was proposed that women be elders in emergencies, that is, when there were no men qualified to be elders and women elders could keep a congregation from being disorganized. No one proposed that women be Ministers of the Word. Schwertley credits J.G. Vos as “largely responsible” for stopping that idea. Hardly. Until April 1941, Vos was a young missionary in Manchuria and had not yet begun writing Blue Banner Faith and Life that later established his reputation as a theologian. Vos’s opposition was only one voice among many, including some women, who wrote in the weekly Covenanter Witness many crushing criticisms of the report recommending that women be allowed to be elders. The 1940 Synod voted 28 for, 41 against, with 33 abstaining, to allow women to be Ruling Elders in emergencies, far short of the two-thirds majority needed to make such a change. That vote ended the matter of women being elders in the RPCNA from 1940 until now. (See William J. Edgar, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America 1920-80, pp. 105-07. See also the 7/9/2019 article by Kyle Borg, “A Brief (Maybe Incomplete) History of Women in the RPCNA” at https://gentlereformation.com/2019/07/10/a-brief-maybe-incomplete-history-of-women-in-the-rpcna/) No Presbytery and no Synod of the RPCNA has ever considered having women Ministers of the Word, now called teaching elders to emphasize their equal ruling authority with ruling elders.
Why did the Synod in 1888 not send its decision allowing women deacons down in overture to the sessions and elders? Schwertley admits he does not know. He uncharitably, and implausibly, suggests a reason: supporters of women deacons feared it might not pass in overture. Uncharitable because, without evidence, he attributes a deliberately high-handed and unconstitutional action to the Synod. Implausible because the decision passed Synod by a four-fifths majority, which means that many ruling elders as well as ministers voted for it. It would likely have passed in overture. A more probable reason than the one Schwertley suggests is this: not too many years earlier, after a long fight, the RPCNA, by overture, had approved having deacons instead of trustees. Women had been trustees. It did not seem like a big deal for women to be deacons.
Women deacons were approved by overture in 1980 as part of the new Testimony. This reviewer was present at the late 1970s Synods that approved the 1980 Testimony chapter by chapter. He does not recall objections to women deacons. Objections came later – as reaction to modern secular feminism? – so a Synod committee reported to the Synod of 2002 affirming the Church’s teaching. (That committee was appointed in 2001 to respond to Communication #01-3 from the Great Lakes/Gulf Presbytery, which had studied a 1999 paper from the Southfield, Michigan RPC where Mr. Brian Schwertley was at the time an Associate Pastor. The Southfield paper used the book by Schwertley that we are reviewing, a book Schwertley published that publicly opposed the teaching of the church whose teaching he had sworn to uphold.) There was a spirited debate at the 2002 Synod, but no one felt strongly enough to have his dissent recorded. At that same Synod, one man recorded his dissent about a feature of the new Book of Discipline (2002 Minutes of Synod, p. 67); seventeen men signed a dissent from a decision about days of creation (Minutes, op. cit., pp. 138-39); and two men wrote dissents against Synod’s decision allowing the use of alcoholic wine in communion (Minutes, op. cit., pp. 146-47).
What has happened since 2002? First, some men read Schwertley’s book and found it persuasive, as Bryan Schneider writes was true of himself. Second, the ravages of modern secular feminism and the sexual revolution have grown worse. The same tune continues: any job a man does, women should do also, like being Ministers of the Word. “Sex positive” feminists write approvingly of pornography. More support gay “marriage,” with some gay couples using surrogates to have children. Many, but not all, feminists support the “transgender” agenda. And so on. Feminism grows worse, leading to ever greater and appropriate reaction against it. Third, perhaps the thrill of proving older men wrong could be at work. As Schneider notes, there has been an uncharitable tone in the criticism of the 1888 Synod. The Rehoboam temptation is always with us (see I Kings 12:1-15 and the oft-ignored command in Leviticus 19:32).
In a third review of Schwertley’s book, this reviewer intends to consider what Schwertley writes about the meaning of ordination. Then it will be time to turn attention to the 2022 paper by Merkel and Villi that recently brought women deacons to the attention of the Synod for a second time in the last twenty-five years. Finally, attention is owed to the report written by the study committee, chaired by Nathan Eshelman, assigned to evaluate the Merkel-Villi paper. That committee has announced its intention to ask the Synod to delete the statement in the 1980 RP Testimony approving women deacons.
– Bill Edgar
20 Centuries of Church History:
An Introduction
How old is the United States? From either the 1607 founding of Jamestown, Virginia, or the 1620 Pilgrim landing at Plymouth Rock, it is slightly over 400 years old. From its 1776 Declaration of Independence, the United States will soon be 250 years old. Since 1776, it has grown from 13 colonies to 50 states, and from about 2 million people to 342 million people. It is a remarkable story.
How old is the Christian Church? From 33 A.D., when Jesus Christ was crucified, it is about 2000 years old. On the Day of Pentecost, 120 followers of Christ grew to 3000. Today, there are Christian churches in almost every country. Christians of all kinds number over two billion people. It is a remarkable story.
How can we grasp such a long history? Three things happened in every century. First, the Christian Church expanded, in obedience to Jesus’ final words, “Go therefore and teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Second, people often hated Christ’s followers, as Jesus predicted when he said, “You will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Matthew 10:22). Third, Paul warned that there “will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). The history of the Unites States has been a history of wars, both big and little. So has the history of the Christian Church, now the Church Militant and not yet the Church Triumphant.
Why learn the history of the Christian Church? First, the Church has learned many things in 2000 years. Foolish children disregard what their fathers have learned. Second, God tells us to remember what he has done, not just in biblical times, but since then. “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7). Third, church history protects us from a common mistake, thinking things were better in the past. “Say not, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask this” (Ecclesiastes 7:10). Even the Church in the time of the Apostles was not at peace nor perfect. Fourth, knowing church history makes us quick to recognize disguised enemies. Satan uses the same lies again in different guise to deceive believers. Fifth, church history strengthens our hope in God. Despite enemies without and within, and despite its own follies, the Church of Jesus Christ continues to expand, often in astonishing ways that only God’s Spirit could do.
Our history of the Christian Church will proceed century by century. Each chapter will have three sections: growth, persecution, and heresy. Growth: Using the Word of God, the Church expands into territory where Satan long held unopposed sway. Its message to people everywhere? Christ has defeated your true enemies: Satan, sin, and death! Therefore, repent of your sins, believe this message of victory, and you will be saved. War: Satan fights back by using his servants to persecute Christians, even killing them. Heresies: Satan tries to replace the Gospel with heretical lies. What will be the outcome of this warfare? We already know! Long ago Christ defeated Satan, which is why the Church grows, despite setbacks. When Christ returns, the Church Militant, at war, will become the Church Triumphant, at peace.
From the beginning, God foretold the history of his church. There will be war. God set the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman at enmity (Genesis 3:15). There will be growth. In Abraham all the nations of the earth will be blessed (Genesis 22:18, Psalm 22:27). There will be deceivers. “Watch out for false prophets,” Jesus said. “They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15).
Most writing about church history is told in four parts: martyrs and heresies of the first centuries; triumph and decay of the Catholic Church; Protestant Reformation; and modern missionary work to the whole world. Our plan is different. Each century gets an article in three parts: Expansion, Persecution, Heresy.
American Christians live in the City of God, the Church, and we live in the American Empire, the City of Man. We owe loyalty to both cities. Each City, for good and ill, constantly influences the other. The story of the still-new American Empire is grand. The story of the Christian Church is longer and more glorious. When the sun sets on the American Empire, the Church will still shine brightly. All Christians should know the history of their city.
– Bill Edgar
Book Review, Part III
A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons
By Brian Schwertley
Having discussed Schwertley’s quasi-Catholic approach of beginning with post-apostolic church practice (Tradition) and then using those eyeglasses to read the Bible, and having criticized his inadequate account of the 1888 Synod ruling to allow women deacons, we turn now to a third portion of his argument, the matter of ordination. A problem here is that there is no settled precise Reformed doctrine of ordination. Neither the Westminster Confession of Faith nor its Catechisms nor the Testimony of the RPCNA define what ordination means. Certain documents describe a procedure for ordination, but not a doctrine of ordination.
The Roman Catholic Church, in contrast, has a full-blown account of ordination. Their Sacrament of Holy Orders is explained in full in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church (pp. 383-399). What is ordination? “Today the word 'ordination' is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a “sacred power” which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination (p. 384).”
All Protestants, however, deny that ordination to any church office is a sacrament. What is it? While Schwertley refers to The Second Book of Discipline of the Church of Scotland, approved in the year 1578 by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he does not quote from it. Here are the sections relevant to a discussion of the ordination of deacons and their duties:
3.4 This ordinary and outward calling has two parts: election and ordination… The qualities, in general, requisite in all them who should bear charge in the kirk, consist in soundness of religion and godliness of life, according as they are sufficiently set forth in the word.
3.6 Ordination is the separation and sanctifying of the person appointed of God and his kirk, after he is well-tried and found qualified. The ceremonies of ordination are fasting, earnest prayer, and imposition of hands of the eldership.
8.2 The office of the deacons so taken is an ordinary and perpetual ecclesiastical function in the kirk of Christ. Of what properties and duties he ought to be that is called to this function, we remit it to the manifest scriptures. The deacon ought to be called and elected as the rest of the spiritual officers, of the which election was spoken before.
8.3 Their office and power is to receive and to distribute the whole ecclesiastical goods unto them to whom they are appointed. This they ought to do according to the judgment and appointment of the presbyteries or elderships (of the which the deacons are not), that the patrimony of the kirk and poor be not converted to private men’s uses, nor wrongfully distributed.
Note the limited scope of the diaconal role according to The Second Book of Discipline: deacons handle the church’s finances, receiving and distributing them. They do so under the authority of the elders.
After referring to The Second Book of Discipline, Schwertley then quotes later writers, such as John Owen (1616-1683) – “Ordination in Scripture compriseth the whole authoritative translation of a man from among the number of his brethren into the state of an officer of the church” (Schwertley p 134), and Owen again on the deacon, “This office of deacons is an office of service, which gives not any authority or power in the rule of the church; but being an office it gives authority unto the special work…” (Schwertley, p. 140). The “special work,” of course, is the collection and disbursement of monies under the rule of the elders.
Schwertley quotes a Committee of the Westminster Assembly of Divines – “Ordination, for the substance of it, is the solemnization of an officer’s outward call, in which the elders of the church, in the name of Christ, and for the church, do, by a visible sign, design the person, and ratify his separation to his office; with prayer for, and blessing upon, his gifts in the administration thereof. Acts vi. 3, 6, Numb. viii. 10-19, Acts xiii. 1-3.” He also quotes other authors at length, the Southern Presbyterian writer James Henley Thornwell and the Baptist theologian Augustus H. Strong, but they add little more to the discussion.
Based on the above citations, Schwertley abruptly asserts that deacons, although they are not pastors or elders and do not vote on the session, “still have an ecclesiastical authority that is clearly forbidden to women (p. 140).” Why can’t women deacons properly handle money? Because, Schwertley asserts, controlling money belongs to husbands. In families, a husband as head of his wife controls the money. She can, of course, “communicate her desires and concerns” to her husband (p.140). Sometimes deacons advise members how to handle their finances. Thus, Schwertley argues, deacons do have authority, and they do teach, so it is wrong to ordain women as deacons – even though The Second Book of Discipline and our Standards, along with many other Presbyterian authorities, teach that deacons do not have ruling or teaching authority.
Of course, Schwertley acknowledges, it is permissible for a woman such as Priscilla to teach a man in private. “[Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). Per Schwertley, it is not okay for a woman deacon to instruct a man about his finances, presumably also in private, because she would be “a publicly ordained church officer” (p 147), but it was fine for Priscilla and her husband to instruct Apollos about the Gospel message.
So, here we are. The 1578 Second Book of Discipline, and our standards, teach that deacons do not exercise ruling or teaching authority. Schwertley asserts they are mistaken because deacons do teach and exercise authority when they collect and disburse money, and when they give financial advice. Advice, of course, is always just that, advice. Collecting and disbursing money, under the rule of the elders, is the work of a servant, that is, of a deacon. Schwertley is mistaken. Deacons do not exercise authority in the church, and therefore women as well as men may properly be ordained as deacons.
Long Postscript
Scripture should be read in the context of Scripture. Which Scriptures are the best context in which to consider the issue of women deacons?
Answer One: Verses chosen by Brian Schwertley that refer to men and women. His verses are:
“For the husband is the head of the wife” – Ephesians 5:23.
​
“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” – I Corinthians 14:33b-35.
​
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet” – I Timothy 2:11-12.
Answer Two: Verses chosen by 2002 Committee of Synod:
“The broad context of I Timothy 3:11 is Paul’s speaking about the church in terms of a household. This is generally recognized…The clear point is that the church mirrors the family in its structure and function.” The discussion then continues along the lines of the analogy between household and church, concluding, “Overall, it seems to us that the balance comes to rest in favor of women participating in the work of the diaconate by ordination” (2002 Minutes of Synod, pp. 118-120).
Answer Three: The whole Bible, including changes from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, chosen by the Judicial Committee of the 1888 Synod.
There is continuity between the Old Covenant mediated through Moses, and the New Covenant mediated through Jesus Christ. There is also discontinuity. The Covenant of Grace is differently administered “in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel.” “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations” (WCF 7:5-6). Some discontinuities concern women.
First, consider how prominent women are identified under both covenants. In the Old Testament Deborah the judge is introduced as “the wife of Lapidoth” (Judges 4:4). Huldah the prophetess is “the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath, son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe” (II Chronicles 34:22). Miriam the prophetess is “the sister of Aaron” (Exodus 15:20). But in the New Testament, women are often not introduced as a wife or sister. Women disciples traveled with Jesus and helped with him with their money, one identified by her husband and two just named (Luke 8:1-3). Paul and companions stayed with Lydia (Acts 16:12-15). Paul had many women companions, helpers, and friends (Romans 16:1-16, Philippians 4:1-3). Women were the first witnesses of Christ’s Resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-10, John 20:1, 11-18). Women were present in Jerusalem at the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 2:1). Some are identified by their connection to a man, but many are not.
Second, a more significant difference in the New Covenant than naming is this: the covenant signs are the same for men and women. Under the Old Covenant, only men were circumcised. In the New Covenant women as well as men are baptized (Acts 8:12). Under the Old Covenant, there was a separate Court of the Women at the Temple. Under the New Covenant, men and women worship God together in the assembly of the saints. They equally partake of the Lord’s Supper. Even though a husband is the head of his wife (no change here, a Creation ordinance), a believing wife makes her children holy, even if her husband is an unbeliever, just as a believing husband makes his children holy, even if his wife does not believe (I Corinthians 7:14). Under the New Covenant, men and women have equal standing before God, and equal responsibilities, rights, and privileges, unless the Scriptures teach otherwise.
Under the New Covenant, as James Kennedy for the 1888 Committee wrote: “The church of the New Testament is a corporate institution, and all her members have all corporate rights and privileges, unless when specially exempted” (Signed, “Committee of Synod,” Our Banner, November 1888, p 376). What “rights and privileges” are specifically restricted to men? Only men may be elders and preachers, something that the 1888 Synod Committee asserted unequivocally and that the RPCNA has taught and practiced ever since. There is no similar restriction on women being deacons, an office of serving, not ruling. Furthermore, in I Timothy 3:11 and Romans 16:1-2, there is substantial evidence that the New Testament church had women deacons, just as the church had deaconesses for many later centuries.
– Bill Edgar
​
First Century, Jerusalem to Rome
Expansion
On the Day of Pentecost, thousands of pilgrims remained in Jerusalem after Passover. They were from the Roman Empire, Mesopotamia (Iraq), and Arabia (Acts 2:9-11). After hearing the Apostles preach in their own languages, many returned home with this announcement: God’s promised Messiah has come. He is Jesus of Nazareth. He fulfilled God’s prophecies about the Messiah by defeating Satan, sin, and death, rising from the grave after three days. The year was 33 A.D.
In Rome, followers of the Way, as Jesus’ followers first called themselves, assembled weekly to worship God in Christ almost from the beginning. We know Christians were early in Rome because the Roman historian Suetonius wrote that Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in 50 A.D. because of “disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” This exiling included the Jewish believers Aquila and Priscilla whom Paul met in Corinth about 50 A.D. (Acts 18:1-2). In 57 A.D. Paul wrote to the church in Rome that “your faith is proclaimed in all the world” (Romans 1:8).
The Gospel also went early to Alexandria in Egypt where a learned Jew named Apollos believed. While Paul was in Ephesus 54-57 A.D., Apollos arrived from Alexandria. Priscilla and Aquila, formerly of Rome and Corinth, took him home and taught him more about Jesus (Acts 18:24-26).
After Paul was sent as a prisoner to Rome, he was allowed to preach while under house arrest. Surprise! The Gospel penetrated Caesar’s household. Paul wrote to the church in Philippi, “All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar's household” (Philippians 4:22).
Before 60 A.D. the Christian Church had reached other major cities; for example, Antioch about 36 A.D. after Stephen was killed and the Jerusalem church scattered, and Ephesus about 54 A.D. when Paul preached there.
By the year 100 A.D., the Christian Church was in every large city of the Roman world: Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, Corinth, Thessalonica, and of course Rome. Their language was primarily Greek. They used the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible, and they shared a collection of Paul’s letters and the four Gospels.
How many Christians were there in the Empire? At first, Roman officials thought they were just another sect of the Jews. For that reason, Proconsul Gallio dismissed Jewish complaints against Paul and his friends (Acts 18:12-15). But before century’s end, Roman officials knew that Christians were not Jews.
The Gospel went beyond Rome. An important eunuch from Ethiopia believed, was baptized by Philip, and returned home (Acts 8:26-40). Paul wanted to go to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28) and may have gotten there. According to later writers, Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew took the Gospel to Armenia. Thomas went to India.
Persecution
Persecution of Christians began in Jerusalem when the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, sentenced Stephen to death by stoning (Acts 7:54-60). He had been preaching successfully in Greek-speaking synagogues that Jesus fulfilled the entire history of Israel. Many followers of the Way fled Jerusalem, going to Judea, Samaria and Antioch in Syria.
Jesus converted Saul of Tarsus by appearing to him while he was on his way to Damascus to arrest followers of Jesus. He later sent Saul, soon called Paul, to the Gentiles. Stoned in Lystra (central Turkey today) and left for dead, arrested in both Athens and Corinth, beaten nearly to death in the Temple in Jerusalem, and shipwrecked on his trip to Rome for trial, Paul suffered much persecution, as did the other Apostles. Except for John, they all died violent deaths, beginning with the Apostle James in 44 A.D. in Jerusalem.
After a great fire swept through Rome in 64 A.D., Nero blamed Christians for the fire. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing fifty years later wrote that Nero fed some Christians to wild animals to entertain the populace, crucified others, and used some dipped in pitch as living torches for nighttime parties.
Official Rome decided that Christians were a dangerous cult. Romans called them haters of mankind, atheists, and cannibals: haters of mankind because they would not offer incense to Caesar; atheists because they worshiped no visible gods; and cannibals because in the Lord’s Supper they were rumored to eat flesh and blood. The Emperor Domitian (81-96 A.D.) took up where Nero left off, banishing many Christians from Rome, executing some, and taking their property from all of them.
The New Testament described the hostility Christians faced. “Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” (Hebrews 12:3-4). Peter told his readers not to be surprised by trials (I Peter 4:12-19). James began his letter telling believers to “count it all joy” when they met trials (James 1:2). Jesus had warned, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you… Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:18-20).
Besides being disliked, slandered, and persecuted, Christians faced troublemakers and false teachers inside the church.
Internal Enemies
Jude wrote, “For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Peter warned, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” (II Peter 2:1-2).
The Book of Revelation reveals that some churches tolerated heretics like the Nicolaitans, the followers of Jezebel, and someone called Balaam (Revelation 2-3). Were the churches of the Apostolic Age pure churches? No, not at all! They contained irritating people and so were often told to “bear with one another.” Some people made mountains out of molehills like what food they could eat. In some churches like Corinth there was outrageous sin, like vicious factionalism, a man sleeping with his stepmother, and arguments about the Resurrection.
What future heresies began to appear? First there were Judaizers. They insisted that men had to be circumcised to be saved. After a fight about circumcision in Antioch, a Council of Apostles and elders settled the issue in 50 A.D. No, Gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised! No, they did not have to keep the Jewish dietary laws. However, for years thereafter, the Church still had to combat Judaizers (as we shall read in the Second Century).
Second, there was a lie now called Docetism, that Jesus was the divine Son of God, but not really a man who “came in the flesh” (John 1:14).
Third, angels, secret knowledge, genealogies, and visions fascinated many in the Church. Several letters like Colossians and I Timothy address the dangerous nonsense that later developed into Gnosticism.
War is sometimes heroic. It is always ugly. Satan hates the church. Because he cannot get at Christ, he attacks his Church, making war “on…those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (Revelation 12:17). The Church faces both petty and deadly persecution from the outside and suffers from small quarrels and heresies on the inside.
Conclusion
With such problems, how did the Church grow in the First Century? It grew because Christ rules from heaven, he loves his Church, and he has sent the Spirit to be its helper. He promised, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end” (Matthew 28:20). What happened to the Church in the Second Century? The same three things: growth, persecution, and heresies.
– Bill Edgar
Make Friends With God's Money
He also said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions. And he called him and said to him, 'What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.' And the manager said to himself, 'What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.' So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he said to the first, 'How much do you owe my master?' He said, 'A hundred measures of oil.' He said to him, 'Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.' Then he said to another, 'And how much do you owe?' He said, 'A hundred measures of wheat.' He said to him, 'Take your bill, and write eighty.' The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. – Luke 16:1-14
Jesus says to you his disciples, “You cannot love God and money.” You cannot say that you will be loyal to your desires, your will, and also be loyal to your king. You will either love him with your possessions, your career, your stuff, or you will hate him. You will either use what you have to do his work, or you will be like a money-loving Pharisee. “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard these things, and they derided him.” They mocked Jesus.
The Scriptures tell us why. If you love money you don't want to hear this parable. The Pharisees love money and so they mock Jesus. But is the money-lover the only one who would take issue with this parable? Certainly, people do not want to be told that their possessions belong to God and should be used for his kingdom. But do you know any people who also want to hear that they have a master? Teachers, do students ever say to you, I wish I had a master, who would tell me what to do? No, we also don't want to hear that we have a master who will one day summon us and say, Give an account of your stewardship: your brain, your body, your family, your money, your career, your fun. I gave you all those things. What did you do with it?
That's how the parable starts. A certain rich man is made aware that his steward is doing shady dealings with his money. Maybe a relative or a fellow rich man said, “Hey you need to check that one guy. He's fishy; look into his dealings.” Or there could have been someone who was on the wrong side of the steward who went to the rich man to say, “I am here only out of great loyalty for you. One of your stewards is pocketing your money. He's robbing you. He's also doing that to me, but you wouldn't care about that. I'm here as a loyal servant; you should check up on your steward.” A certain rich man receives these accusations, follows up, and the result is, “Turn in your books. You are fired. Give an account of your stewardship; you can no longer be a steward.”
In verse 8, where the unjust steward is commended, it's important to note that he is NOT commended for being a cheat, a liar, and unjust. Jesus's whole point is to tell you that you must use your stuff to be loyal to him. Some have tried to use this parable to discredit the Lord Jesus and his teaching. One of the most famous examples is Emporer Julian the Apostate. Julian wanted Rome to go back to its old Roman ways – enough of Christian doctrine and influence. Get back to being good Roman pagans. Julius said, “Look at this parable: Jesus is teaching his followers to be liars! Thieves! Noble Romans should reject corrupting Christian influences.”
Julian failed to understand what Jesus was commending in his parable. But Julian was right about one thing. Jesus gave this parable to his followers. Just before, in chapter 15, Jesus saw the way that the Pharisees and scribes were grumpy at sinners turning from their wickedness to enter the kingdom of God. So, the Lord told his threefold parable about what's lost, being found. How this brings delight to God and rejoicing in heaven, and yet there the Pharisees are, standing outside the party with a grumpy look on their faces. Here in verse 16 Jesus is not speaking to the Pharisees, correcting them about their terrible interpretation of the law. Jesus is not speaking to Gentiles who come up to him and say, “We don't want to worship our worthless gods anymore. How can we be saved?” No, Jesus is talking to his disciples, those who believe that he is the Son of God, the promised Messiah, and want to follow him.
Jesus speaks to his disciples. He doesn't say to lie, steal, deceive your superiors. No, why is the unjust steward commended? Verse 8: “So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly.” That's a funny word. When is the last time you've used that word, shrewd?
Shrewd is one of those words that we are not sure if it's a compliment or an insult. Recently, before taking the kids to school, the girls were working on some crafts. I said, “Come on, we got to get to school, you little crafties.” And they said, “Hey Dad, don't call us crafties!” I said crafty because they were doing crafts, but crafty is also an insult. You're a crafty person; you're always scheming and trying to get an advantage over someone. Jesus says that his disciples should be shrewd, clever, resourceful, tactful; they should be people of strategy.
One author put it this way about verse 8: “This guy is a fraud, but a most ingenious fraud. This steward is a rascal, but he is a wonderfully clever rascal.” Jesus isn't saying that his disciples should be rascals or frauds. So, if you follow the Lord Jesus and you're a fraud or a rascal, stop it. But what does Jesus command? His disciples should be clever. There's a certain level of creativity that belongs to the children of God. The steward had a clearly defined goal. I'm about to be fired. I'm out of a job, and I need to get a new one. Verse 4: to “receive me into their houses”. Verse 4 is not simply the steward musing, “How can I end up on somebody's couch eating their snacks, freeloading?” Note: the Greek here translated as “receive[d] into their houses” has the idea of being received into someone's home business, on someone's property. Greek sources outside of the New Testament use that phrase to refer to employment. He wants to get a new job. He has a clearly defined goal and so he develops a clever, crafty, shrewd way to get his goal.
In verses 6 through 8, we see the steward do a couple of things. One, he still pretends to have authority. If the debtors knew that this guy was fired, why would they would show up? “You need to come and talk about your account.” They would say, “Yeah, right! You're fired. You have no authority; get out of here.” But he still has possession of the books and so has the appearance of authority. So, when he summons the debtors, they come.
The second thing is that as the steward makes his master look good, he makes himself look good. Making himself look good, that's obvious. If I come to your house and help you move the grand piano, you're more likely to help when I have a heavy wardrobe to move. But how does he make his master look good?
The master doesn't have to honor the deal. When we get to verse 8, we imagine the master looking over the books. The oil that he knew to be 100, he now sees as 50. The wheat that he knew to be 100; it's now 80. What can the master do? He can tell his debtors, “This person was fired; he lied to you; and you still owe me that 100. Don't pay me 50. Don't pay me 80. You owe 100!” But what does the master do? He honors the deals which make him look like the most generous, kind master ever. Could you imagine being one of those debtors after the news comes out? My lender fired a guy who lied to me and said that I only had to pay 80 – and my lender accepted the deal! He made my burden lighter, and extended mercy to me.
Later, everyone would find out that that steward had lied. But what will be clear to everyone was that that rich master is kind and generous. Why do Jesus's disciples need this story? After all, he tells it to his disciples. Because you are either making God look merciful, kind, and generous, or you are making God look stingy, cruel, and hardhearted. The disciples of Christ have this great privilege to reflect what kind of master we have.
We can make two mistakes. One is the mistake of excuse. Gandhi supposedly said, “I like Christ, but not your Christians. They're nothing like your Christ.” And people say similar things, thinking that that means they can stand before the Lord and say, “Your Christians fell short. Therefore, I don't need to believe in the gospel.” Such thinking leads to Hell. The gospel that is preached by the church is not, “Believe in the goodness of Christians or you will perish.” The gospel is “Believe in the perfection of Christ, believe in his willingness to be your substitute and suffer on the cross for your sins or you will perish.”
But there's another mistake often made as we consider the disciples reflecting the Lord Jesus. That mistake is to downplay how important our reflection of him is. For this mistake, I must pick on us and our Reformed, predestination believing camp. We love to downplay the influence that we can have on those around us. We say the Lord is sovereign. He is the author of salvation. So, if the Lord really wants that person to believe, it doesn't matter what I do; she will come to faith. But the sovereign Lord also says to his church, Go and make friends for the kingdom.
Do not downplay the influence that you have on the people who live with you, who work with you, who see you. There is the saying, “Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.” But the gospel is words! You must announce that good news. But this popular saying does touch on a point that there should not be a strong contradiction between the savior whom we describe, the love that he has, and the actions of our lives.
Jesus says in verse 8 that the sons of this world make their masters look fantastic. In Isaiah 49:6, the Lord promises that he will raise up Israel to be a light to the nations. The Pharisees said, “We are that light. We are the sons of light. You can read the scroll, the war of the sons of Light against the sons of Darkness, that's us!” But when we see how the so-called 'sons of light', the Pharisees, made God look in the gospels, what can we conclude? When the 'sons of light' saw people healed, they complained against the Lord. When the 'sons of light' saw demons and evil conquered and cast out, the 'sons of light' didn't rejoice. When the 'sons of light' witnessed sinners and tax collectors entering the kingdom of God – they were party poopers. They frowned and clenched their fists instead of rejoicing with the Lord and with heaven.
Jesus says the 'sons of light' don't use their money, their homes, their possessions, their coins to be loyal to God and do good for their neighbor. The 'sons of light' used their stuff for their own selfish hearts. It certainly had an appearance of godliness; you have to kind of look like believers to be called the 'sons of light'. But Jesus says, in verse 15, You've gone about your selfishness and money-loving in such a way that you impress the eyes of men, but the Lord knows your heart.
Today's sons of light don't offer relief for financial difficulty, all while saying, “Let me tell you how to escape your spiritual debt.” They don't bring sandwiches when they go and preach to the hungry. They speak against liberal leftist, Marxist communities online. But they don't speak to them at the dinner table over food.
The disciples of Jesus Christ are told don't be like the sons of light. Don't be like them, but like the sons of this world: use your stuff, your things, to obtain your goal. Make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon so that when it fails, they may receive you into an everlasting home.
Here's the sound bite: Do things with your possessions here on Earth that will matter in heaven. Jesus said this earlier in chapter 12 with the parable of the rich fool: Sell what you have and give alms. Provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys.
Author David Gooding tries to capture this truth like this. If, when accounts are rendered and it becomes known in heaven that it was your sacrificial giving that provided those copies of the Gospel of John which led a whole tribe out of paganism to faith in Christ, will not that whole tribe show you eternal gratitude? Eternal gratitude that they will not show to those who spent their cash on some luxury for their own enjoyment. Pastor and Old Testament scholar Dale Ralph Davis seems to one-up Gooding's idea. Will some Ugandan believer come thanking you because you helped subsidize a Biblical stewardship program that gave microloans so that he and others could start a self-supporting business?
Beloved, don't you want this kind of thanks? Don't you want that kid on your block to thank you for always making sure he had a space at your table for dinner? Don't you want the younger generation to thank you for investing in them and encouraging them to walk in the Lord? I can't urge you to obtain that kind of thanks without expressing thanks to you already for what you have done. Our bulletin board displays the many thanks given to the Broomall church: Thank you for this wall that we needed; for our elevator project; for supporting our work, our mission.
As your pastor, how can I not say, thank you for the many ways that you have aided my family and me. Thank you, that when your pastor said, “I want to throw a huge birthday party and invite a whole lot of people. I don't know how it's going to work, but we should do it,” that you didn't say “What a crazy idea!”, but instead, “What can we bring? What do you need?”
The disciples must not look to the 'sons of light' for a demonstration on how to use their stuff. Jesus says the sons of this world are better at representing their masters well. But of course, if we consider the idea of representing your master well and using your possessions for your neighbors' good, really, there is no better picture than the Lord Jesus himself.
It is the Lord Jesus, who in righteousness and holiness cancels the debt of others; not so he can get a job, but to bring them into salvation, God's kingdom. The Lord Jesus is not concerned with obtaining a standing in someone else's house, but in bringing unworthy, no-good sinners to have a loving and proper standing in the house of God. It is the Lord Jesus who gives all that he is and all that belongs to him to represent the glory of God and do immeasurable good to his neighbor. And if we are his disciples who follow him, we must do the same, in the most practical of ways.
But you notice how in the story that Jesus tells, he doesn't give a Hunter Jackson example: “Let's throw this huge birthday party and figure it out along the way.” No, it's calculated. The steward is shrewd, clever. I will do these things 1-2-3, towards this goal. Jesus didn't say, “Be reckless and gamble with your possessions.” But he does say, “With some cleverness, with some creativity, with some strategy – use your possessions to do good and represent your master well.” Do you get how practical and earthly Jesus is in chapter 16? It almost feels kind of weird. “Make friends,” said the Lord Jesus. “Strategize. Come up with schemes.”
And do this because you know what kind of master you have. If the steward didn't think he had a generous master, he would not have tried this idea. If he knew he had a stingy penny-pinching master, he would think, my master? Eat some debt? My master, lighten someone's load? Never! But this steward knew his master. He maybe even chuckled to himself and said, “You know, my master just might do that. He just might say you could pay late; yeah, you can fix this.”
You have an even better master! A master who is full of compassion, willing to kill the fatted calf and have celebrations for no-good sinners (Luke 15). As you consider your possessions and what to do with them, consider: you will give an account of how you have used them. Prepare your books. Make entries of friends that you have made through the Lord's help and work through some clever strategy. The Lord will see whether you served him with generous loyalty, or whether you served him with what was left over from serving yourself.
– Hunter Jackson
Broomall, Oct 26, 2025
The Fall Meeting of Atlantic Presbytery
​
Humility is good. When we Reformed Presbyterians spend time with like-minded believers from other denominations, we might feel proud of our long history. The RPCNA was formed in America in 1798! Makes twentieth century denominations like the OPC and PCA seem like babies. Of the American presbyterian denominations, only the Associate Reformed Presbyterians are older (and note the name: we're related).
But moderator Paul Brace invited Pastor Ron Potter of the Reformed Church of the United States to preach and bring fraternal greetings from the RCUS. This year the RCUS is celebrating its three hundredth anniversary. They've had 239 Synods. They may be the RCUS, but they're older than the US (I assume there's a name change back there somewhere). So, let's not get impressed with ourselves.
It was a good meeting. Elder Ben Hollo of Coldenham attended for the first time as a voting delegate. Dan Roggow of Elkins Park was taken under care as a student (our term for the potential pastor track). Stephen Sutherland of Cambridge is now licensed to preach, having passed the first five examinations. James Allmond of Walton and David Klussman of White Lake each passed the first examination, James as a student under care, and David as a ruling elder seeking to be licensed to preach more regularly. All the students passed easily, without any no votes, which does lessen the drama of the one-by-one vocal vote, but means that our students are doing well.
But what kind of questions are on these oral exams? Depends on the exam. Some sample personal godliness questions: When did you feel called to the ministry? Someone sends you an angry text; what do you do? How are you doing with repenting? Forgiving? A sample theology examination question: How many gods are in the Trinity? What has God given the US government? Which nature of Jesus was tempted? Presbytery meetings are open to the public, so you can come to the next one and see how our potential future pastors do.
Deacon Joseph Comanda of Broomall has served as our presbytery treasurer for many years, probably over twenty. If you see him, thank him for his service. The new presbytery treasurer will be the copy editor of this publication, the able Betsy Perkins. There is also a new committee appointed to address the various uses of marijuana, chaired by her husband, Duran Perkins.
The White Lake congregation, led by the extended Klussman family, predictably fed us splendidly, helped along by those admittedly superior New York bagels. Come to Family Camp next year from July 31-August 7, and see if you can find some bagels on your way in. You'll get more on your way out.
-- John Edgar
An Appreciation:
White Lake Covenanter Camp
I love camp because it feels like a chance to be free; you can open up that inner you; you can be different while being the same. From getting real about the Word to just plain goofing off, it's a great way to be around other believers and talk about the good news and be in a safe place. Some people say "Friends come and go," but at camp you can make a long lasting friendship within an hour (no four leaf clover needed!). Because when you go up that old dirt road and enter the wide arms of joy, friendship, and God you're a part of a forever family.
– Micah Klussman
Authors in this issue
​​
Bill Edgar is a retired pastor of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia) and the author of the following books:
Chutzpah Heroes: Thirteen Stories About Underdogs with Wit and Courage
History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America 1920-1980: Decade by Decade
7 Big Questions Your Life Depends On
All books are available from both Crown & Covenant and Amazon and other online vendors.
​
John Edgar is the pastor of Elkins Park RPC (Philadelphia).
Hunter Jackson is the pastor of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia).
Micah Klussman wrote his appreciation of White Lake Camp after his third year attending, as a rising fifth grader. He is a member of White Lake RP Church.​​​​​​​
​​
Mark Your Calendars
​
We note, for your calendars and prayer, upcoming events of interest to Atlantic Presbytery:
​​
Please contact Kyle and Violet Finley, Atlantic Youth Coordinators (atluth@gmail.com) for more information if interested in the youth events.
​
Retreats and conferences are usually for grades 7-12 unless otherwise indicated.​​​​​​
​
Pacific Coast Winter Youth Conference
December 27-30, 2025
Grades 7 - 18 years old
Topic: Ruth: A God Who Restores Bitter Years
Fresno, CA
Speaker: Jonathan Sturm
​
Our friends on the West Coast are eager to have some folks from other presbyteries come join them – you would be an encouragement to them, as they would be to you, and what adventure it would be! If you're interested in going and just aren't sure how to pull it off logistically, please get in touch with Kyle and Violet Finley.
Registration is available here: https://forms.zohopublic.com/firstrpchurch/form/PacificPresbyteryYouthRegistration/formperma/xRn93siivUufC4JKgtjTGFZjBCridb_Ht_CogzJ4nos.
​​
Cross Con 2026
December 31-January 3
(Ages 18-25)
Louisville, KY
​
Details:
https://rpglobalmissions.kindful.com/e/rpgm-crosscon-26
This large conference is sponsored by Crossway, Desiring God, and others, with the purpose of "calling this generation to make their lives count by making Jesus' name known. We emphasize the gospel, the local church, and God's heart for the nations." RP Global Missions decided to buy a block of tickets for it and subsidize them for RP young people (or friends) who might be interested in jumping on board together. Housing is included, as well as dinner on Dec. 31. If you have questions, feel free to reach out to Julie Hart (julie@rpglobalmissions.org).
​
St. Lawrence Presbytery Winter Youth Retreat
Jan 16 - 18, 2026 (MLK weekend)
Grades 7-12
Central New York. Exact Location and details TBD.
Middle school and high school students, save the date for this winter retreat in central NY! The St. Lawrence Presbytery is our close neighbor, and White Lake camp and our fall retreat are joint ventures with these folks, so this retreat is a great opportunity to meet up with camp and retreat friends. We'll pass along further info/registration as it becomes available.
​
Atlantic Presbytery Theological Foundations Weekend (TFW)
February 13 - 15, 2026
High school juniors through age 23
Riverside, RI
​
Right here in our presbytery; please save the date! TFW is intended to give folks of upper high school and college/career age an opportunity to do some theological "heavy lifting" on a variety of topics, while enjoying fellowship together. This has been a wonderful weekend the last few years – great teaching, good food, and young people who are glad to be together in both substantial and fun ways. We will follow up again later when registration opens, but for now go ahead and mark your calendars.​
​
Spring Atlantic Presbytery Meeting
March 20 - 21, 2026
Ridgefield Park RP Church
​
RPCNA Synod
June 16-19, 2026
Indiana Wesleyan University (Marion, IN)
​
White Lake Camp
Prep Week July 18 - 25, 2026 for counselors and staff
Kids & Teen July 25 - July 31, 2026 ​
White Lake Family Camp July 31 - August 7, 2026
​​​​​
A Little Help?
The Editors do not sell individual subscriptions to A Little Strength. Our goal is to publish with as little labor and financial overhead as possible. Yet mailing paper copies to Atlantic Presbytery churches and maintaining a website aren't free. If you have found A Little Strength to be interesting and profitable,
would you consider sending a contribution?
Make your check out to Elkins Park RPC, designated for A Little Strength,
and send it to the treasurer, at the church's address:
901 Cypress Ave, Elkins Park, PA 19027.