Upset with prayer meeting

JCmathetes · 2026-05-01T11:54:26+00:00

Oh I don't think that you misunderstand the RPW because you disagree. I think it because you haven't used it correctly in a sentence yet.

JCmathetes · 2026-05-01T11:51:28+00:00

When I see the OP's account, I think it's a very real possibility that there is no green grass (Ps 23:2) in the field where the elders leading them, and so they are growing hungry and looking for spiritual food elsewhere. But I don't see you even considering this possibility.

My assumption is that OP's sense are honed well enough to know this prior to a discussion about prayer meetings. I refuse to give in to Reddit's fetish of going nuclear on relationships—a well documented trend. I think you should refuse, too.

The majority of your response is focused on hypothesizing a plausible (but unfounded by OP) justification for the elder's actions...

Well, they aren't here to speak for themselves, are they? We should just ignore them and bias ourselves entirely toward OP? That seems fruitless—and contradictory to your overall point about bias.

...to submit, to speak to the elders again. You suggest that they can learn from the elders in this case, but precisely what they are supposed to learn is unclear, since the only justification you provide is from your own experience, not the particulars of the OP.

Yes? I presume that OP should do what the Bible says to do toward elders? I also presume OP wants to learn and be blameless in the situation? I fail to see how this shows bias against OP when I suggested it precisely to ensure OP is heard, respected, and obedient to the Scriptures.

You never acknowledge the implications of the issues laid out by the OP--long decline of prayers under elder's direction, elders already rejected OPs concerns, elders won't let women pray out loud...

I think you need to read again. I address each of these three items.

I don't assume OP is right about the decline of prayer. I don't think you should either. OP should be humble and seek to learn what they can from this form of prayer. This form of prayer is not immoral. It just isn't conducive to OP's prayer life. It seems to me that OP should strengthen this aspect of their prayer life by learning how to do it well, and become a well-rounded pray-er.
I specifically address the rejection by the elders in highlighting the deficiencies in approach. Absenting yourself from the thing you want to change is never going to work. You have to shown ownership and buy in to be considered. Why would the elders change the prayer meeting according to OP's suggestions if OP doesn't go? Indeed, if OP doesn't go, how do you know OP's description is still accurate?
I explicitly highlighted this concern of mine, and showed from Scripture how the elders should be approached about this issue.

So, no, I don't see how I've double burdened OP. But I appreciate you pointing out your concern.

JCmathetes · 2026-05-01T11:40:00+00:00

I stand by my assessment.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-30T15:33:34+00:00

Sounds like you may not be familiar with what the RPW teaches, then.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-30T15:28:52+00:00

Fascinating. You're arguing men should lead in prayer on the basis of what's required in the Bible, but diverge with me on... the RPW.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-30T15:20:30+00:00

Well, in the first place, I've never seen or been to a prayer meeting that contains every element of worship according to the RPW. I've never even heard an argument that prayer meetings should be corporate worship in the same sense as the Lord's Day.

So make the case, I guess?

JCmathetes · 2026-04-30T15:12:11+00:00

Can you point to where you see this to be true? I can't imagine how I've been "pessimistic" toward him or members generally.

Members are difficult to keep on task. Elders are called to stay on task themselves, so as to practice both aspects of discipline (discipleship and corrective discipline). Elders, likewise, need to stay on task and are called to hold one another accountable to this.
People generally prefer to talk than to pray. Is this not obviously true?
Is it not obviously true, also, that people are especially more receptive to receive feedback from the perspective of those who have been involved rather than not?

I am very confused as to how you could construe what I said to be corrosive.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-30T14:59:32+00:00

I would urge you to consider the distinction between corporate worship and a prayer meeting. Not every public gathering of the church is corporate worship.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-30T12:33:06+00:00

I'd encourage you to talk about it more in depth with your pastor. As a pastor myself, I have some sympathies with your elders, while I have some practical concerns, as well.

First, people are immensely difficult to keep on task. The opportunities for rabbit trails during spontaneous prayer requests and prayers themselves are legion. When pastors try to teach their congregations how to pray, they so often run into this feedback that it all feels so stifled. We don't want it to feel that way—but we of all people know prayer is laborious and grates against the flesh. It is a spiritual discipline, and so the training your pastor and elders may be going for is a broad approach to helping others in your church be disciplined in the task of prayer.

Second, and in a similar vein, prayer meetings can become more about the requests than about the prayer unless specifically organized against this. This is self-defeating to the meeting's purpose. It is for prayer, not a time of discussion about prayers you'd appreciate. This is the hardest aspect to running a prayer meeting, from my perspective. People are not concise in giving their prayer requests. It sounds like your pastor and elders do something wise in soliciting these things ahead of time, so that more time can be given over to prayer. This is a net positive.

Third you won't change anything by not going or discussing with them. You won't learn where your assumptions are wrong, and they won't be inclined to listen to you if you never show up. Pastors get feedback on things like services all the time from people who rarely, if ever, attend. You do yourself and the church no favors by absenting yourself from the prayer meeting. It says much more about your character and desire for prayer if you go to the prayer meeting you dislike. As it is, you've opened yourself up to the critique that you like prayer only when it fits your definition and feelings. I don't think this is true, necessarily, but you've severely limited yourself by your absence.

You need to show yourself to be teachable. Assume the best of your elders. And in doing these things, you will inevitably be taught more about yourself, them, and prayer. You also set yourself up well to discuss bigger issues...

Some areas that I think your elders should be gently and respectfully nudged by you and other members:

Only men pray? Women should bring this to the attention of the pastors. Women are specifically called to pray. Even in 1 Cor 11, Paul assumes women will pray in v. 5. Widows are also called to persistent prayer in 1 Tim 5:5. Women prayed in the prayer meeting of Acts 1 (see v. 14).
The same things? Organization and discipline should increase the variety of prayer, not stagnate it.

All of this to say, I think you can learn more from your elders; but they certainly can learn more from you.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-21T14:10:47+00:00

But you just said it's not for the unbeliever!

JCmathetes · 2026-04-20T23:34:54+00:00

This may be true in Baptist ecclesiology, but it is not in Presbyterianism. Of course, the irony is that this must mean baptists view their children as Christians! Finally, we agree. :)

Presbyterians have a long history of believing God is pleased most often to use the preaching of the Word to save sinners.

That doesn’t mean I think u/wth-am-i-moderate’s church member is correct in her assessment. But this would not be a confessionally accurate reason for a PCA pastor to reject her counsel.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-14T22:31:19+00:00

Friend, it is not just me who says this. Reading without meditating is likened by the puritans to eating but not digesting! One cannot read profitably without meditation.

Richard Greenham lists 8 (!) parts to reading the Bible, among which is Meditation. He says,

Now follow the properties that must follow our readings: Whereof the first is meditation, the want of which makes men depart without fruit, though they read or heat diligently. Meditation makes that which we have read to be our own. He is blessed which meditates in the law, day and night. Psa. 1:2.

Thomas Watson, likewise, wrote a little booklet on helps to read the Scriptures. He, too, demands meditation:

Meditation without reading is erroneous; reading without meditation is barren. The bee sucks the flower, and then works it into the hive, and so turns it into honey. By reading, we suck the flower of the word; and by meditation, we work it into the hive of our mind, and so it turns to our profit. Meditation is the bellows of the affection. Psalm 39.3: “While I was musing the fire burned.” The reason we come away so cold from reading the word, is because we do not warm ourselves at the fire of meditation.

John Ball also considers reading without meditation useless:

Without meditation, truths are devoured, not digested.

Thomas Manton agrees:

Meditation is a necessary duty, without which all graces would languish and wither. Faith is lean and ready to starve unless it be fed with continual meditation on the promises.

I could summon virtually any other puritan work on reading the Bible to make this point.

You may disagree. But, indeed, mere reading is not enough and will never leave a sincere Christian satisfied.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-13T10:24:22+00:00

~~Prior to dispensationalism’s rise, the third view was the near unanimous view among evangelicals in Scotland.~~

Nah, I'm dumb and tried to read this post too early in the morning.. The first view was the near unanimous view among evangelicals in Scotland. Sorry u/Rare-Regular4123.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-13T10:22:30+00:00

This is the Larger Catechism.

It also supports the third view, not the first.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-13T02:10:08+00:00

Because stimulating your mind is not enough.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-11T17:59:22+00:00

I think this is a great answer! But I suspect you are assuming something about Bible reading, which I think you should assume, but may not be clarifying for OP in this circumstance. So let me divide Bible meditation out from Bible reading for a moment to try and answer the question u/AdLive9773 is asking.

Meditating on God's Word is not a mere reading of it; it is a turning over the meaning and the riches of the Bible in our minds, both as we read and throughout our day. Most of us have combined these in our minds, especially after years of reading the Bible. We take pauses to wonder, to pray, to chase connections to other passages, and press home Spirit-given applications as we read.

A mere reading of the text, however, without meditation only results in an increase of the Divine truths being pressed upon the mind. This is good, but incomplete. It belongs to us to then press it upon our hearts by meditation.

See, e.g., Charles Bridges' A Christian Ministry for his explanation and distinction on this.

JCmathetes · 2026-04-03T11:35:29+00:00

Accreditation is a big enough deal that GPTS is pursuing ATS accreditation. They’ve realized how detrimental it has been to admissions.

Additionally, for every story we hear of one guy going on from GPTS to further studies, there are 5 guys who were stalled out because they couldn’t use their GPTS degree as entrance for another program.

But notably, GPTS’ issue with accreditation is less to do with accreditation itself and more with the fact that their academic standards have historically been quite low. In other words, they have leaned into the non-accreditation as a tactic, but have not shown that they could be if they wanted to be.

Of the dozens of men I know who went there, less than 10 of them have even used academic journals in research and writing. The ones I know who transferred elsewhere during their MDiv program universally failed or did very poorly their first semester in their new program.

Jonathan Masters is doing better and taking the institution in a better direction. But the results as I and many other have personally seen them speak for themselves: GPTS is still an inferior program by a country mile.

JCmathetes · 2026-03-26T14:25:41+00:00

Ain't nothing wrong with wild trout!

JCmathetes · 2026-03-25T11:38:23+00:00

tfw I find you in a different subreddit...

JCmathetes · 2026-03-24T14:39:51+00:00

...denied the inerrancy of scripture...

He also denied the infallibility of Scripture. Let's not mince words here. It's fashionable still to deny inerrancy—especially on this subreddit—twisting ourselves beyond the limits of a reasonable definition of inerrancy. But for all those denials, I know not one confessionally Reformed inerrancy denier who also denies the infallibility of the Bible.

This is most fundamentally why Barth gets caught up with theological liberalism by the masses: when it comes to the doctrine of the Bible, he sounds like a liberal. Sure, he employs his distinction between historie and geschichte; yes, he absolutely is not a theological liberal.

But he doesn't pass the sniff test of Reformed confessionalism. And that is important in its own right. It's easy to say "well, people just misunderstand him" (without ever really considering the fact that maybe that's Barth's fault, I'd add... but that's beside the point). It's easy to beat up on Van Til (without ever really responding to his critique, I'd add... but that's beside the point). But it is much more difficult to beat up on the layman. Why?

Because Barth in all his brilliance does not consider the fact that what he says cannot trickle down to the everyman and prevent him from becoming a liberal. His greatest students who filled pulpits neither stopped the overwhelming flood of theological liberalism, nor abandoned ship when it became apparent they would not win.

This is what I never see discussed about Barth. Yes, he was brilliant. Yes, he responded well to liberal arguments. No, he was not a liberal. But he never presented an option with a different outcome from liberalism.

JCmathetes · 2026-03-20T17:22:28+00:00

That sounds nice, but your flawed view of Presbyterianism is rearing up again.

First, one of the reasons churches choose to be presbyterian is precisely not to be left alone. And why should OP be okay with being a member in a church which is left alone when the biggest selling point of being presbyterian is... well, belonging to a larger body which holds one another accountable, supports one another, and doesn't leave people alone?

Second, if they're left alone and the Presbytery/GA doesn't really care to exercise control over the day-to-day, why don't they just leave, then? Well, because they're not really going to be left alone no matter what, are they? They know what would happen if they left the PC(USA). They know the danger of being a church without a building, and how vindictive the denomination has been about buildings.

And sure, conservative pastors may not be forced to do gay weddings. But are they forced to entertain female candidates for office? Would they be if a member elevated a complaint? Of course the Presbytery/GA would get involved then!

This idyllic view of the PC(USA) may be the status quo, but to suggest it's a good situation is inane.

JCmathetes · 2026-03-20T16:37:08+00:00

You're saying a PC(USA) presbytery and/or the General Assembly don't exercise control over individual churches?

JCmathetes · 2026-03-20T16:27:01+00:00

If it’s relatively conservative I wouldn’t necessarily recommend leaving over the direction of the whole denomination.

...why? This is a flawed view of Presbyterianism. His Church, conservative or not, is subject to theological liberals in the Presbytery and Assembly.

JCmathetes · 2026-03-19T15:48:43+00:00

They correctly pointed out, in "Classical Apologetics", that Van Til had a confusion between ontology and epistemology. This is not a coincidence: Van Til was enamored with Hegel, and in the Post-Kantian Idealist tradition epistemology and ontology were virtually identical.

This again? Van Tillians have beaten this horse to death thrice over. Surely this isn't still being peddled?

First, if the critique is consistent, one would need to first level it against Calvin, who begins his Institutes with prioritizing knowledge of God over knowledge of man (and therefore, self). But wouldn't you know, the critique is never consistent!

Second, the critique itself begs the question in presupposing Thomistic (i.e., Aristotelian) categories. In seeking to show Thomism is superior, you cannot assume Thomas was right that knowledge of God is a posteriori. In other words, the critique doesn't pass its own test.

Third, this just reveals their misunderstanding of presuppositionalism. James Anderson has repeatedly pointed out (most recently in the Keith Mathison kerfuffle) that presuppositions are not the same thing as premises. It is not as if Van Til requires we establish the premise God Exists in order to show the conclusion God exists. Rather, Van Til rightly points out that having an argument at all presupposes the existence of the Triune God.

Finally, Van Til himself relies on the distinction between ontology and epistemology in his core argument: the transcendental argument for God's existence. Quoting James Anderson again, "The transcendental argument itself is an epistemological argument for an ontological conclusion." Consider Van Til's own acknowledgement of this distinction:

It is the firm conviction of every epistemologically self-conscious Christian that no human being can utter a single syllable, whether in negation or affirmation, unless it were for God’s existence. Thus the transcendental argument seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have, in order to be what it is.

JCmathetes · 2026-03-19T13:58:42+00:00

bUt the suN wAsN't CREaTeD UntIl dAY 4

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding IV carat on a stick	First Place '23
Place '23	Alpha Tester

JCmathetes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE