Ephesians 4:1-16
September 19, 2010
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.” (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.
When you think about the great presidents of the United States, who usually comes to mind? Washington? Lincoln? Jefferson? The Roosevelts? Reagan? It’s always a good debate with no clear answer. Now, if you were to debate whom the greatest person to become president was, I think the answer would come down to a choice between two men, one of whom would be George Washington. Besides Washington, it would hard to find a greater person, to find a person who had more impact on history and development on the United States, than James Madison.
He certainly wasn’t one of our greatest presidents. His miscalculations about the British led to the War of 1812, and his miscalculation about Britain’s wartime intentions allowed the British to capture and burn, with no American resistance, much of Washington, D.C. Madison was not one of our greatest presidents, but he was clearly our greatest resident. He accomplished something that was far more powerful than anything achieved by any of our presidents other than Washington. What did he do? He wrote most of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Our constitution is seen worldwide as perhaps the greatest political document ever written, and most of it was conceived and written by James Madison. It’s too bad people don’t know more about him.
What’s ironic is that despite his greatness in his day, he most likely could never win the presidency if he were to run today. Why not? It has to do with his physical stature. If you look back at all the presidents elected since the beginning of the television era, starting with John F. Kennedy’s win over Richard Nixon, the taller of the two candidates has always won. In addition, since that time, no one has won the presidency without being at least six feet tall. James Madison was a pip-squeak in comparison, topping about between 5’4” and 5’6”. But his physical smallness didn’t hide his mental brilliance. Without him who knows if our democracy would be even half as great.
So where did Madison come up with all these ideas, ideas that he eventually applied into the U.S. Constitution? The easy place to look is to Roma and Greece. Certainly democracy was born in Greece, and championed in the early Roman Empire. Still, there were many ideas brought in by Madison that didn’t have roots in Greece or Rome. For instance, democracy in the ancient world was only for the rich and powerful. In ancient Athens you had to be wealthy to vote. In Sparta, you had to be a warrior of distinction to vote and participate in government. In Rome, the senate was filled with wealthy landowners. These were democracies for the wealthy. If you were poor, you had few rights and little participation.
Madison was influenced by something else, something that might surprise you. His life had twist that changed the way he thought, and it all came about because Madison had been so sickly as a child. He had been born and raised in Virginia as the son of a relatively wealthy landowner. For young men of his status, it was expected that he would go to the College of William and Mary. But the land and climate there—a boggy, muggy mess in the summer—would damage his already fragile health. So he decided to go to the College of New Jersey, which later became Princeton University. It was there he learned under the tutelage of John Witherspoon, and Witherspoon’s teachings made their way, through Madison, into the U. S. Constitution.
Witherspoon was a Scottish Presbyterian pastor who had been brought over from Scotland to resurrect the troubled university. With him he brought ideas that had been forged in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland was a skeptical church that was, and always has been, very aware of the presence of sin. Having been dominated by the English for centuries before forging a peace with them, the Scottish always were skeptical about the willingness of anyone in power to be truly gracious in governing. The Scottish people had seen empty promises from the English. They also had witnessed the corruption of bishops and others in both the Catholic and Anglican churches. So, in creating a church government for their church, they created a system full of checks and balances. The point was to keep any one person or group from wielding too much power.
Thus, in the Scottish Presbyterian system, clergy had no more ruling power than elders. In fact, on church boards (or sessions, as they are called), the pastor only had one vote equal to each other member. In higher governing bodies, there would always be an equal number of laity and clergy. The point was to keep the clergy from having too much power, as was the case in the Catholic Church, but to also keep the laity from having too much power. It was a balance between hierarchical and mass rule. The elders would also be elected, and they would be part of a representative system. The point of this was to have people of wisdom lead so that the power of populism would be checked.
Witherspoon taught the importance of these kinds of checks and balances in his courses at Princeton, and the ideals of checks and balances heavily influenced Madison. Thus, the United States governing system is based upon the Presbyterian system. It is a system that is highly aware of the likelihood of people in power to sin and to be self-centered in their governing system. Based on the Presbyterian approach, Madison created a system in which each branch—the executive, legislative, and judicial—acted as a check and balance on the others. Thus, just as clergy were not given unlimited power, neither were presidents. The legislative and judicial branches would check and balance presidential power. In the legislative branch there would be two bodies that checked and balanced each other. There would be the House of Representatives, which would be more immediately representative of people. Serving only two-year terms, and representing a relatively small number of people, they would be very dependent on the voters, so they would more clearly represent the interests of smaller groups within their states. The Senate, comprised of two senators from each state serving six-year terms (and originally voted on by the state governments, not by the people), would be the wisdom body of government. They would be less reactive to interest groups, and their long terms would free them up to act with a slow-paced, measured wisdom. All of these checks and balances come courtesy of us Presbyterians.
This emphasis on checks and balances, recognizing the reality of human sin, is at the core of what it means to be Presbyterian. Our name, “Presbyterian,” reflects that sense of checks and balances. Do you know what the name means? Let me give you a hint. If you go to the eye doctor, and you are told you have to start using reading glasses, do you know what that condition is called? It is called “presbyopia.” It literally means “old eyes.” Presbyterian comes from the Greek word “presbyteros,” or “elder.” The idea is that elders, who hopefully have great wisdom, represent the church members. They aren’t necessarily political representatives, like your congressmen or congresswomen. They are spiritual representatives, chosen by the people, who hopefully have the wisdom to discern God’s will.
If you look at almost any denomination, their names tell you something crucial about them, often about their government. For example, Episcopalians are called that after the Greek word “episkopos,” which means “bishop.” It tells you that bishops run them. Congregationalists are run by the congregation, with monthly meetings voted on by the members. Methodists are called that because of their “methods,” or ways of practicing their faith, instituted by their founder, John Wesley. Quakers are called Quakers because it used to be said that they prayed with such passion that they shook or “quaked” when praying. Lutherans follow the teachings and example of Martin Luther.
The creation of the Presbyterianism system wasn’t only an attempt to create a religious democracy. It was an attempt to get back to the original intent and practices of Christianity found in scripture. The original reformers such as John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Philip Melancthon all had studied scripture, and tried their best to recreate the form of government in a church found in scripture. What they found in scripture was an emphasis on elders, who were gifted with leading the congregation, and pastors, who were gifted with teaching a congregation. In fact, in our tradition we have what we call “ruling” elders, or laity who are to lead the church, and “teaching” elders, or pastors, who are to teach the people how to grow spiritually. These ideas are reflected in our scripture for this morning, where it says, “The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.”
Paul is giving us a template for the church, which is that everyone has a role. Our role is unique to each of us, yet whatever our role we are to work together for the good of the body of Christ. Churches aren’t to be run by any of us for our own sakes, but by all of us together for Christ’s sake.
What really separates us Presbyterians from other Christians is not so much our beliefs, which are very similar to other Protestants, but our approach. We believe in the importance of following God together, seeking to follow it in the way Paul teaches, which is that we are called to: “lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
Amen.
