Читать книгу Church Government According to the Bible - Simon V. Goncharenko - Страница 8

Among the concepts that need to be defined at this point are such articles as sufficiency of Scripture, church polity, and hermeneutics. The success of any foregoing discussion can be greatly impeded when writer and reader find themselves operating with different meanings of the terms. Outlined below, then, are the definitions of some of the most common concepts discussed in this work.

Definition of Terminology

Sufficiency of Scripture

The doctrine of sufficiency generally answers the question of whether the Bible is enough in knowing what God wants us to think or do.24 According to Wayne Grudem, “the sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.”25 Sufficiency of Scripture, according to Yves Congar, means that “God has given us everything necessary or useful for the conduct of our lives.”26

Church Polity

Polity, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English, is “A form or process of civil [or in our case, religious] government or constitution.”27 The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology contains the following definition of polity: “the organization or governmental structure of a local church or fellowship of churches.”28 Dargan, a nineteenth-century Baptist theologian, defines polity as “the method of organization and rule under which a church, or churches, live and act.”29 Brand and Norman espouse the following particularly helpful definition of polity in the introduction to their Perspectives on Church Government: “As the church corporately submits herself to the lordship of Christ, the process, expression, and structure of her submission can be designated church polity.”30

Hermeneutics

Since the two foundational chapters of this work, chapters 3 and 4, center on the issue of biblical hermeneutics, a quick working definition of this concept is called for here. The English word “hermeneutics” comes from the Greek verb hermeneuō31 and the noun hermeneia.32 These words point back to the wing-footed messenger god, Hermes, in Grecian mythology. As Zuck points out:

He was responsible for transmuting what is beyond human understanding into a form that human intelligence can grasp. He is said to have discovered language and writing and was the god of literature and eloquence, among other things. He was the messenger or interpreter of the gods, and particularly of his father Zeus.33

Thus the verb hermeneuō came to refer to bringing someone to an understanding of something in his language or in another language.34 Of the nineteen times hermeneuō and h.ermeneia occur in the New Testament, they are more frequently used in the sense of translation (John 1:42; Luke 24:27), which can be understood as an explanation in one language of what is conveyed in another language.35

Hermeneutics, therefore, is the science (principles) and art (task) by which the meaning of biblical text is determined.36 It should be distinguished from exegesis, which is the determination of the meaning of the biblical text in its historical and literary contexts, and exposition, which is the communication of the meaning of the text along with its relevance to present-day hearers.37 Zuck likens hermeneutics to a cookbook, comparing exegesis to the preparation and baking of the cake and exposition to serving the cake.38

Hence, hermeneutics provides the rules or guidelines, the principles and theory governing a proper approach to understanding the Bible.39

Our Main Focus

In his book, Gospel and Spirit, which deals primarily with hermeneutical issues in the Pauline epistles, Gordon D. Fee ends his chapter entitled “Observations on Church Order” by raising some questions regarding the proper application of the New Testament “church order.” For “if we do think in terms of ‘modeling’ after the New Testament church,” asks Fee, “which of the various models do we opt for, and why?”40 In answering Fee’s question, I will argue based on the research conducted that multiple-elder congregationalism, unlike any other form of church government, enjoys the unequivocally overwhelming support of the Bible. Because any biblical argument for a model of church government relies upon the particular position that one takes on the basic hermeneutical/theological principles—a position that functions as a presupposition—I will delineate my own position in the next chapter. In order to validate the contention of this manuscript, it will be necessary to demonstrate that both the theological principles that form our pre-understanding and the exegesis of the biblical data in polity that rests on this pre-understanding are in line with Scripture.41

Because our understanding of church polity is directly related to our position on the following hermeneutical principles, it is my contention that the way to the multiple-elder congregationalism as the most biblically defensible form of church government lies through a position for the above-mentioned principles that is in line with the teachings and general intent of the word of God, as follows: (1) Scripture reigns over tradition; (2) literal interpretation is the best way of understanding the Bible consistently; (3) the New Testament church originated at Pentecost; (4) the offices of apostle and prophet were the foundation blocks of the spiritual building—the church; (5) the offices of elder, overseer, and pastor are interchangeable in nature and function; (6) application of any biblical passage and principle must follow interpretation. Conversely, a disregard for the above-mentioned six principles will yield a church government structure that does not comply with the biblical ideal, does not achieve its full potential, and opens itself to abuse, as is evidenced by history.

The next two chapters are devoted to further explication of these principles, while the following two chapters examine how they affect our understanding and practice of church polity. At this point, however, it may be of benefit to examine the most popular models of church polity.

Primary Polity Models

A brief survey of the main polity models is in order. Perhaps a disclosure regarding a limitation for this section needs to be made first. The scope of this segment is limited to a survey. It is a survey because, with the number of writing theologians boasted by each tradition, it is not possible to cover every single nuance in their respective literature, nor is this the focus of the present work.

What follows, therefore, is a representative sampling that is designed to examine closely some of the larger elements that make each tradition’s exposition of church polity distinctive. With that in mind, perhaps the following will suffice as the simplest list of views available: (1) episcopal polity; (2) presbyterian polity; and (3) congregational polity. What is perhaps most striking about the wide variety of Protestant views on polity is that, whether in part or as a whole, they point to the Scripture as their source. In the words of Henry Craik, a nineteenth-century theologian in the Brethren tradition,

there are passages in the inspired writings that seem, to some extent, to favour a species of Episcopacy; others that may appear to support Presbyterianism; very many, again, that uphold Congregationalism, and others, as clearly teaching what may be described as less systematic than any of the above organizations.42

Below is the more in-depth examination of the three ecclesiastical structures.

Episcopal Polity

The episcopal group is made up of those denominations that emphasize a distinct role for the episkopos.43 Among their number are Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, Methodist,44 many Lutheran45 fellowships, and some Holiness and Pentecostal denominations.46 For the purposes of this study, we will consider the Anglican/Episcopal ecclesiology to be a fair representative of the episcopal group and examine it next.47

Modern Anglicans believe that there is no blueprint in the New Testament for the polity and government of the church.48 Thus the Anglican form of church government, in the words of Peter Toon, “is an attempt to conform in general terms to the pattern in place in the early church in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.”49 Prior to Toon’s “mature” version of Anglican ecclesiology, earlier Anglican divines derived the basic idea of church polity from the presupposition that the church was not a new organization on this earth, but “only the Jewish church perfected and enlarged.”50 This link between the two “churches” allowed the Church of England to model many of its governmental structures after the Israeli religious hierarchy: a high priest, with lower priests under him, and Levites a level below.51 As to the explicit support for the office of a bishop enjoying a “seniority” over that of presbyter/elder in the New Testament, it is generally recognized that a third office distinct from presbyters is not found there.

Advocates of the episcopal polity sometimes use the following arguments in support of their view. First, there is the historical development that resulted in three orders of ministers—deacons, presbyters, and bishops—as early as the middle of the second century. Second, there are passages where, according to the adherents of this model, implicit support for hierarchical government may be found: The Bible documents Paul and Barnabas “appointing” elders in each church (Acts 14:23), James exercising a special leadership role in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13), and Paul instructing Titus “to appoint Testament Elders in every town” in Crete (Titus 1:5).

The bishop is the key to the functioning of church government within Episcopal polity.52 He inherits this centrality of position from the apostles themselves, according to the Anglican understanding of the apostolic succession.53 Richard Hooker, in drafting his great treatise, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie, in the late sixteenth century, forcefully argues for the office of the bishop:

A thousand five hundred years and upward the Church of Christ hath now continued under the sacred Regiment of Bishops. Neither for so long hath Christianity been ever planted in any Kingdom throughout the world but with this kind of government alone, which to have been ordained of God, I am for mine own part even as resolutely perswaded [sic], as that any other kind of Government in the world whatsoever is of God.54

Thus, episcopal polity has historically built itself upon the diocesan bishop, who is regarded as successor to the Twelve in an unbroken succession.55 Hooker confirms this:

From hence it may happily seem to have grown, that they whom now we call Bishops were usually termed at the first Apostles, and so did carry their very names in whose rooms of spiritual authority they succeeded.56

The succession of bishops held by the Anglicans constitutes the channel of grace whereby the life of the church is sustained.57 Cyprian first enunciated this principle in the significant statement, “Ecclesia est in episcopo.”58

Within Anglicanism, the duties of a bishop include the ordination of priests, the placement of priests in pastoral assignments, the confirmation of the baptized, the preservation and teaching of true doctrine, and the exercise of discipline.59 The main basis for the Anglican Church’s teachings regarding its leadership is a logical derivation from a comparison to the way things work in civil government, as well as the duties assigned to the Old Testament office of a priest. In response to a more congregational government, Anglicans claim that the powers exercised by the officers of the church are of such a nature as can only be derived from God, or those who act by his special commission, namely, the apostles.60 For further support, they cite such ministers as Timothy and Titus, who seemed to enjoy a higher level of authority than that of deacons or elders/overseers.61 In the case of Titus, Potter points out that he was ordained and appointed to his office not by the people’s choice, but by Paul, who had converted the Cretans to the Christian faith,

and by virtue of his appointment he was empowered to teach all degrees of men, and to exhort and rebuke them with authority; to take cognizance of heretics, and to reject from his own and the church’s communion, such of them as did not repent upon the second admonition; to set in order whatever St. Paul had left wanting. Lastly, to ordain those whom he himself should approve to be bishops and elders.62

Moreover, in considering who may be ordained for different church offices, Anglicans recognize Scripture’s silence, yet conclude “from the different kinds of officers whom Christ hath entrusted with the care and government of his church, not only that private Christians are excluded from the ordinary execution of an ecclesiastical power; but that some powers are appropriated in such a manner to the chief officers, that they cannot lawfully be exercised by those of lower orders.”63

Additionally, Anglicans view the structure of the church, made up of apostles and prophets with Christ himself as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:19–20), as something that was established on this earth during Jesus’ own lifetime. In other words, they trace the origins of the Christian church to a time before the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples in Jerusalem on Pentecost. With regard to baptism, the Church of England views circumcision as the forerunner to the sacrament, attaching to it remission of sins, the grace of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life.64 Potter sees baptism at the center of different gospel presentations in the Scripture.65 He cites Acts 22:16, in which Ananias instructs Paul to be baptized and wash away his sin immediately following his conversion: “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” Then there is Peter exhorting his converts in Acts 2:38: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”66

Even Christ, in Potter’s opinion, joins faith and baptism together as necessary conditions for salvation in John 3:5: “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” And in Mark 16:16: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” Potter concludes that these and the like passages of Scripture led the primitive church to infer that where the gospel had been sufficiently propounded, “no man could be saved without baptism actually obtained, or earnestly desired.”67 The rejection of baptism in the New Testament, according to this tradition, was tantamount to declining the covenant of God, as was the case with circumcision in Israel.

It may come as a surprise, in view of such high importance being ascribed to baptism within the Church of England, that Anglicans consider it one of the lowest ministries, with the power to perform it belonging chiefly and primarily to bishops, though it could be delegated to presbyters and deacons operating under the authority and within the “jurisdiction” of the bishop. Whether a layman can perform baptism in the Anglican Church is a delicate issue. In consulting the works of early church fathers, there is somewhat of a consensus that it can be done only in extreme situations where no ordained clergy can be procured.68

Another responsibility belonging strictly to priestly office within this denomination is the right to consecrate the Lord’s Supper. As Christ consecrated the bread and the wine and commanded his disciples to continue this practice in remembrance of him, the act of consecration, according to the Anglican theology, falls within the command to continue. Unlike baptism, the right to perform the consecration of the Lord’s Supper is open only to the bishop or the presbyter, but not to the deacons, because:

Baptism was always reckoned one of the lowest ministries, and, therefore, was usually committed by the apostles to ministers of the lower orders . . . or that baptism, being the right of admission into the church, was thought more necessary than the Lord’s supper; which reason is commonly assigned by the ancient fathers for permitting laymen to baptize when any person was in danger of leaving the world unbaptized. But there is yet a farther reason why none but bishops and presbyters have ever consecrated the Lord’s supper; viz. because the Lord’s supper was always believed to succeed in the place of sacrifices; consequently, as none beside the high-priest and inferior priests were permitted to offer sacrifices under the Jewish law, so the Lord’s supper was consecrated by none but bishops and presbyters, who alone are priests in the Christian sense of that name.69

In the exercise of church discipline, Anglicans believe that the power to determine and pronounce the disciplinary measures resides with the “rulers” of the church, and not the whole assembly. As the ones invested with the authority to make laws, it is natural for the governors of the church to “pass sentence on those who break them.”70 These disciplinary judgments were pronounced in the public assemblies (Matt 18:19) but received their force from the leadership of the church.

Presbyterian Polity

The presbyterian system of church government places primary authority in a particular office as well, but puts less emphasis on the individual office and office holder than upon a series of representative bodies that exercise that authority.71

Presbyterianism originated in the Protestant Reformation, particularly in Calvin’s Geneva.72 In this reformer’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, as in the later Presbyterian and Reformed tradition, the key to both the doctrine and the order of the church is found in God’s sovereignty, rather than in the explicit testimony of Scripture.73

The key officer in the presbyterian structure is the elder.74 Accordingly, this model traces its name from the two Greek words: presbuteros, which occurs sixty-six times in the Greek New Testament75 and means “older man” or “elder,” and presbuterion, which occurs three times in the Greek New Testament (Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5; 1 Tim 4:14) and means “body of elders.” Presbyterians believe that presbuteros (elder) and episkopos (overseer) are descriptive synonyms designating a function for the same office holder:

Beyond dispute, for Paul the elder was an overseer and the overseer was an elder. The two terms simply describe two roles of the same officeholder: as an elder this officer exercises authority; as an overseer this same officer performs the functional role of spiritual supervision and oversight.76

According to this model, the elders or overseers governing the church, distinct from those charged with teaching, are chosen by the congregation, which must recognize that “their officer’s election is Christ’s will and that in the final analysis, as Paul states in Acts 20:28, it is the Holy Spirit who is placing these men in the office of elder/overseer.”77 Thus, “in choosing officers, the church does not grant them authority, but recognizes Christ’s authority and calling.”78 The Presbyterian congregation recognizes that the church is not a pure democracy, so the job of the elders/overseers does not consist of simply carrying out the congregation’s will.79 Instead, their responsibility is “to rule and oversee the congregation, not primarily in agreement with the will of the congregation but primarily in agreement with the revealed word of God, in accordance with the authority delegated to them by Christ, the head of the church.”80

Presbyterians recognize that the scriptural pattern of government is necessary for the wellbeing of the church, but is not essential for its existence.81 At the same time, they insist that the governmental structure of the New Testament church, especially the one described in Acts, provides a warrant for their “governmental connectionalism.” In other words, by logical deduction from the passages describing the practices and organization of the early church, the theologians of this tradition hold that the Scripture supports their connectional government of graded courts: local “session,” regional “presbytery,” and “general assembly.”

The local council of elders/overseers referred to as the session or consistory exercises authority over the local congregation. Some of these same elders/overseers, together with elders/overseers from other local churches, serve periodically as members also of a presbytery or classis that usually meets quarterly to exercise authority over the several local churches in its geographically circumscribed area, and more specifically to examine and to ordain ministers of the gospel and to exercise discipline over the same when the need arises. Of these elders/overseers, along with elders/overseers from other presbyteries, in turn, some serve as members of a national General Assembly or synod that usually meets annually to exercise authority over the several presbyteries in a region or country, to worship God together, to hear reports on the spiritual health and future plans of the church’s mission agencies and educational institutions, and to adjudicate disciplinary cases that come before it from the lower courts.82

This system of graded assemblies, or courts, reflects the unity of the church catholic, regional, and local.83 In passages like Acts 13:1–3; 15:3, 35, Presbyterians see the elders/overseers of the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations forming themselves into local presbyteries.84 Much of their system is based on the account of the conference in Jerusalem described in Acts 15, which was convened with the purpose of identifying the terms of Gentile conversion—that is, faith alone versus faith plus circumcision and observation of dietary laws. Presbyterianism considers the Jerusalem council to have set a precedent for their general assembly.

Their interpretation of Acts 15 is as follows: When the local church in Antioch did not believe that they had sufficient authority to settle for themselves the terms of membership in their churches, a request was made for the assembly of elders to convene in Jerusalem.85 Furthermore, the Presbyterians consider the dissemination of Acts 15 decisions, as evidenced in Acts 16:4, to be further proof that the apostles and elders did not regard the congregations to which they wrote as independent and autonomous, but rather as “mutually submissive to, mutually dependent upon, and mutually accountable to one another.”86 Additionally, Christ’s high priestly prayer for the “visible unity” of his followers in John 17:20–21, as well as the interdependent nature of the gifts of the Spirit, are put forth as further arguments for Presbyterian connectionalism:

In light of the biblical emphasis, then, on visible Christian unity and “oneness” (see John 10:10–13; Rom 15:5–6; Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 1:10–13; 12:12–13; Eph 2:14–16; 4:3–6; Phil 2:2; Col 3:12–14), why, Presbyterians wonder, do Congregationalists put so much emphasis upon—indeed, even glory in as one of their distinctives—local church autonomy, self-consciously making their independency from each other and from other denominational churches a major reason for claiming “bragging rights” over Presbyterian connectionalism so far as their form of church government reflecting the teaching of the New Testament is concerned?87

Under the presbyterian system, there is a deliberate coordinating of clergy and laity.88 Both groups are included in all of the various governing assemblies and neither has special powers or rights that the other does not have.89 However, their exegesis of 1 Tim 5:17 draws a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders.90 Ruling elders are non-ministerial elders of the church who are elected by the local congregation. Teaching elders are those who have been set apart for the ministry of the Word and are called by the local congregation to labor among them, but ordained and installed in their work by presbyteries.91 The Presbyterian recognition of the ruling elder is based on the distinction of teaching and ruling gifts (1 Tim 5:17; Rom 12:8; 1 Cor 12:28), and the divinely authorized role of the elders of the people in the Old Covenant (Num 11:16, 17), continued in the New (Acts 11:30; cf. Matt 13:52; 23:34).92

The presbyterian model views the office of the deacon as one of ministry rather than spiritual government. It is charged with the service of mercy to the poor and needy among the saints, and, as God grants opportunity, to the world.93

When it comes to church discipline within this branch of Christianity, although the ordinary members of the church are frequently called upon to take part in the application of discipline, it is generally applied by the officers of the church and can be applied only by them when discipline becomes censure.94 Distinguishing between private and public sins, Presbyterians have a different way to deal with each. In case of private sins (trespasses dealing with interpersonal relationships), the pattern of Matt 18:15–17 is usually followed, with a personal confrontation preceding a confrontation by a group of people and possibly resulting in a confrontation by the church. Public sins, however, render the sinner subject to disciplinary action by the consistory at once, without the formality of any preceding private admonitions, even if there is no formal accusation.95

Elaborating on the disciplinary process exercised by the consistory, Berkhof unveils its three stages:

(a) The excommunicatio minor, restraining the sinner from partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This is not public, and is followed by repeated admonitions by the consistory, in order to bring the sinner to repentance. (b) If the preceding measure does not avail, it is followed by three public announcements and admonitions. In the first of these the sin is mentioned, but the sinner is not named. In the second the name is made known in accordance with the advice of classis, which must first be obtained. And in the third the imminent final excommunication is announced, in order that this may have the consent of the congregation. During all this time the consistory, of course, continues its admonitions. (c) Finally, this is followed by the excommunicatio major, by which one is cut off from the fellowship of the Church, Matt 18:17; 1 Cor 5:13; Titus 3:10,11.96

Berkhof adds that according to 2 Cor 2:5–10, it is always possible to reinstate the sinner, provided he or she shows due repentance and confesses his or her sins.97 All church power, according to Presbyterianism, is wholly moral and spiritual.98 Church officers possess no civil jurisdiction; they may not inflict civil penalties nor seek the aid of the civil authority in the exercise of their jurisdiction.99

Congregational Polity

Congregational polity, as defined by James Leo Garrett, is “that form of church government in which final human authority rests with the local or particular congregation when it gathers for decision-making.”100 Thus, congregationalism locates the authority of the church in each local body of believers.101 Saucy summarizes well how this works out on a local level:

Emphasis is upon the democratic structure of the church whereby the ultimate authority is vested in the members themselves. This does not preclude ministers elected in recognition of their divine gifts to serve as leaders, but their authority rests in their relation to the congregation and is generally less extensive in practice than either the episcopal or presbyterian ministers. In the ultimate sense, officers have no more ecclesiastical authority than any other member. Each has but one vote on any issue.102

Whereas the historical roots of episcopal (which date to the rise in prominence of the office of the bishop in the second and third centuries a.d.) and presbyterian (which most trace back to the writings of John Calvin) forms of church government are generally better known, it may be of value to take a moment here to review the origins of congregationalism. According to Kern’s work, A Study of Christianity as Organized, the original motive for the establishment of congregationalism was neither doctrinal nor legislative, but disciplinary: “It was distinctly a moral motive—not a desire for a scriptural in place of an unscriptural creed, nor a scriptural in place of an unscriptural form of government, but the desire for a scriptural in place of an unscriptural state of discipline.”103 In the course of their study and further investigation of Scripture, the early Separatists did reach the conclusion that their newly adopted polity was in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, rather than their own invention.104 Most date this new phenomenon to around the year 1580, when, in the city of Norwich, England, Robert Browne, “the father of modern Congregationalism,” became pastor of what may be called the first Congregational Church of modern times.105

Aside from Browne, other well-known early English congregationalists include Henry Barrowe, John Owen, Isaac Watts, Phillip Doddridge, William Jay, Thomas Binney, Robert William Dale, Joseph Parker, and Andrew Martin Fairbairn.106

The congregational model of church government today has two different variations: democratic congregationalism,107 which itself can take a number of different practical venues: single-elder-led, deacon-board-led, trustee-led, etc., and multiple-elder-led congregationalism, which is exercised by a good number of Baptist churches, all Plymouth Brethren churches, and Bible churches, among others.108 “It is the intention under congregational polity,” writes Garrett, “that the congregation govern itself under the lordship of Jesus Christ (Christocracy) and with the leadership of the Holy Spirit (pneumatophoria), with no superior or governing ecclesial bodies (autonomy) and with every member having a voice in its affairs and its decisions (democracy).”109 The principle of autonomy, as explained by Erickson, means that each local church is self-governing: Each congregation may call its own pastor, determine its own budget, purchase its own property, make decisions that do not require outside ratification or approval, and enter into cooperative affiliations that are strictly voluntary in nature.110 Accordingly, the concept of democracy means that, on the basis of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, authority within the local congregation rests with the individual members.111

When it comes to the biblical warrant for congregational structure, there are at least six Scripture passages that, according to Garret, offer explicit support for democratic congregationalism: Matt 18:15–20; Acts 6:3; 13:2–3; 15:22; 1 Cor 5:2; and 2 Cor 2:6.112 Second, such support can also be derived from examining the predominant meaning of ekklesia, a Greek term that refers to a local assembly in some ninety-three of the 114 times it is used in the New Testament. The third argument for congregationalism is derived from the New Testament’s complete silence regarding any territorial organization of the church or churches.

There is no reference in Acts or the Epistles to any structure above or beyond the local church. There is no command to form inter-church unions of any type. We find no evidence of control over a local church by outside organizations or individuals. The apostles made recommendations and gave advice, but exercised no real rulership. Even Paul had to argue for his apostolic authority and beseech his readers to follow his teachings (2 Cor; Gal 1:11–24).113 Fourth, the interchangeability of the Greek terms episkopos, presbuteros, and poimēn, defended in Chapter 4, can provide further—though indirect—support for congregational polity, which is more than can be said of the basis for views advocating a monarchical or diocesan bishop.114

Fifth, the doctrine of the priesthood of all Christians,115 “affirmed in the early patristic age, overcome and supplanted for centuries by the clerical priesthood, and rediscovered by Martin Luther,”116 provides a powerful support for congregational theologians’ position.

In the congregational form of government, as in the presbyterian, there is only one level of clergy.117 The New Testament offices of elder, overseer, and pastor are believed to be one and the same and are usually referred to as “pastor” within the single-elder-led branch of this tradition.118 In this kind of government, the pastor is seen as the only elder in the church, and an elected board of deacons serves under his authority and gives him support.119

The following evidence is often used in support of single-elder-led government. First, there is the fact that the early church would meet in the homes of the believers.120 It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that each household was led by one elder.121 Second, Eph 4:11 makes reference to the pastor-teacher: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.” According to Akin, as the only office of the four mentioned in the passage that is directly related to the local church, it is extremely likely that the pastor-teacher is an elder.122 The third argument for single-elder-led churches is a pattern found in both the Old and New Testaments. That pattern is a plurality of leaders with a senior leader over them.123 This can be observed in Exod 18, in which Moses, the senior leader, is assisted by a group of “under-leaders” who help him with judging the nation of Israel. The same can be said of James, the half brother of Christ, who according to Paul (Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12), served as the main, though not sole, leader of the Jerusalem church. Acts 15 provides a beautiful illustration of how James functioned in that capacity. Fourth, some believe that the “angels of the church” addressed in Rev 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14 are best interpreted to mean pastors. If this understanding is correct, it is clear that each church had not many pastors, but one.124

Those advocating plurality of elders within a local church differ in that they recognize a pastor as one among the elders—an elder in office.125 He does not have authority over the other elders, nor does he work for them as an employee. His distinction from the rest, however, is that he is engaged in the full-time work of preaching and teaching and derives his income from that work.126 In this system of government, there is always more than one elder, a point that distinguishes this form of government from the “single-elder system” discussed above.127

The scriptural support for a plurality of elders in a local church can be found first in the fact that whenever elders are mentioned in the New Testament, they are always spoken of in the plural.128 Second, the fact that the leadership of the church at Ephesus is identified by “elders” in Acts 20:17 provides yet further proof for plurality of eldership in the New Testament. It was not a single pastor that Paul wanted to see; it was a body of elders that was entrusted with leading the Ephesian church.

Within congregationalism, church officers are generally viewed as representatives and servants of the church, answerable to those who have chosen them.129 They are not to exercise their authority independently of, or contrary to, the wishes of the people.130 Proponents of congregationalism believe that biblical church discipline is a function of a congregation, citing passages like Matt 18:17, 1 Cor 5:4–5, 2 Cor 2:6, and 2 Thess 3:6, 14–15 in support of this view. In Matthew, the last resort in the discipline process is for the whole congregation to be involved. In 1 Corinthians, Paul directs the church to deal with the incest among them on a congregational level. In 2 Corinthians, he speaks of the benefits of disciplinary action exercised by the majority. Finally, in 2 Thessalonians, the whole church is commanded to withdraw from the one with “disorderly” conduct. As Gerald P. Cowen explains, “the final court of appeal in matters of discipline is the church as a whole, not the officers or any representative body.”131 MacArthur’s understanding may be used as a universal example of the common sentiment within this tradition: “Our Lord clearly teaches here that ultimately the entire assembly of believers has a responsibility to follow through in seeking restoration of a sinning member.”132 Having introduced the concept of Church Polity and various polity models, it is now time to examine the hermeneutical principles which form the foundation of the argument within this work.

24. Enjoying a measure of recent popularity, the topic of sufficiency of Scripture has received much attention in print. The following few titles are recommended for those interested in further research in the area of sufficiency: Yarnell, The Formation of Christian Doctrine, 25–28; Weeks, Sufficiency of Scripture; Murray, Claims of Truth, ch. 3; Pipa and Wortman, Written for Our Instruction.

25. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 127.

26. Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 381. While his definition may sound similar to Grudem’s, Congar’s true meaning is something entirely different, for only a few pages later Congar espouses, “There is no one who holds that the letter of the Text alone is sufficient,” (ibid., 409).

27. Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. “Polity.”

28. Erickson, “Polity,” 155.

29. Dargan, Ecclesiology, 11.

30. Brand and Norman, Perspectives on Church Government, 5.

31. Unless otherwise noted, quotations have been transliterated from the original Greek.

32. Zuck, “Why of Bible Interpretation,” 22.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid., 23.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid., 24.

39. Ibid., 25.

40. Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 142.

41. Pre-understanding is to be differentiated from a definitive understanding. The latter is the final understanding of the text which is produced through eisegesis rather than exegesis, while the former is the theological “baggage” that the interpreter brings to the text and which will influence how he sees the text (Bultmann, “Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” 294).

42. Craik, New Testament Church Order, 3–4.

43. This is the Greek term that is used in the New Testament to designate an “overseer.” Presently, those denominations that practice the episcopal model of church government translate episkopos as “bishop.”

44. One of the major distinctions of Methodism is that, in adopting an episcopal polity, it lessened the power of the bishop. For an introduction of the Methodist concept of this office, see Moede, Office of Bishop in Methodism and Erickson, Christian Theology, 1081. For a more in-depth overview of the Methodist polity, consult Kern, Christianity as Organized, 493–520.

45. For a helpful overview of the Lutheran polity, see Kern, Christianity as Organized, 463–69.

46. Such as the Church of God (Anderson, IN) and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN).

47. Peter Toon prefers to call this form of church government synodical rather than episcopal. Anglican polity is considered to be somewhat of a “mid-range” on an episcopal scale, with Methodist churches being the simplest, authorizing only one level of bishops, and Catholic churches the most complex, with multiple layers of bishops. For an additional source on Anglican polity, see Toon, “Episcopalianism.”

48. Toon, “Episcopalianism,” 28.

49. Ibid., 24.

50. Potter, Church Government, 3, 24. By “Jewish church,” Potter, a nineteenth-century Archbishop of Canterbury, means Israel’s Old Testament covenant relationship with YHWH. Incidentally, having claimed that the Bible contains no blueprint for church organization, Toon resorts to following in the footsteps of earlier theologians from whom he had previously distanced himself by using the Old Testament in support of the episcopal ecclesiastical hierarchy. See Toon, “Episcopalian’s Response,” 102.

51. Potter, Church Government, 95, 101. Thus, inherent in the episcopal structure is the idea of different levels of ministry or different degrees of ordination (Erickson, Christian Theology, 1070).

52. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1070. Bishops are a quasi-independent body of teachers/overseers. There are differences among the denominations that practice some type of episcopal polity. In the Eastern Orthodox churches, the patriarch of Constantinople is primus inter pares (first among equals) and together with four other patriarchs, forms a pentarchy. Scandinavian Lutheranism has retained the title and office of “bishop,” but with less than clear claims to apostolic succession. In Methodism, the bishop is consecrated but not ordained, without apostolic succession, and functions with and through the annual conference. Garrett, Systematic Theology, 585.

53. A notion that can be traced back as far as the late second to early third centuries a.d. when Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian argued in their respective writings that apostolic succession was verifiable since there existed lists of bishops. See Irenaeus, “Irenaeus: Against Heresies,” 5.20.2; Tertullian, “Prescription against Heretics,” 32. However, not every denomination that follows an episcopal structure affirms apostolic succession. Some would prefer the term “historic episcopate,” believing this to be the primitive model, yet recognizing that they cannot actually historically trace such a succession to the first and second generations of church leadership. See Brand and Norman, Perspectives on Church Government, 298; Saucy, Church in God’s Program, 106. The Anglican Church’s understanding of early ecclesiastical structures is largely shaped by its own form of government, which was inherited from the Roman Catholic Church. As a result of its determination to find biblical support for its own structure, the Anglican Church can miss the unique nature of the early years of the church. So when the apostles are involved in ordaining ministers, matters of church discipline, or restoration of repentant church members, the Anglican position sees only the authority possessed by the apostles to command such actions, completely missing the vital role that the local church played in each situation and the care with which the apostles exhorted the church, rather than ruling over them. Unfortunately, this thinking runs counter to passages like Eph 2:19–22, which plainly state that Christ’s job, along with those of the apostles and prophets, was to erect a solid foundation for the new building—the church. Chapter 4 will discuss apostolic succession further.

54. Hooker, “Seventh Book,” 7.1.4.

55. Garrett, Systematic Theology, 585. By the laying on of hands in the ceremony of ordination, the authority of the apostles has been transmitted down through history to today’s bishops. See Erickson, Christian Theology, 1071.

56. Hooker, “Seventh Book,” 7.4.4.

57. Dana and Sipes, Manual of Ecclesiology, 145.

58. “The Church is in the bishop” (Cyprian, “Epistles of Cyprian,” 68.8).

59. Garrett, Systematic Theology, 585.

60. Potter, Church Government, 102. Thus the bishops are not chosen from below, but from above.

61. “Whether or not the positions of James and Timothy and Titus were actually taken by the early church as the link between apostolic superintendence and that of the later bishop,” Saucy points out, “this office does gradually appear around the turn of the first century, first in Asia Minor, and a generation later in the West. Appearing first as more or less a headship among equals, it develops into a position of independent supremacy during the second and third centuries. Instrumental in bringing this about were the needs of the church. The bishop provided a unifying factor amid churches of diversified character, many of which were suffering persecution. As an authoritative doctrinal voice, he was also a safeguard against heretical intrusions. And finally, there was the practical need for someone to represent the churches of one locality in communicating with others. According to Episcopalians, these needs were met through the guidance of the Spirit by the establishment of this form of government” (Saucy, Church in God’s Program, 108).

62. Potter, Church Government, 117. They also view the seven angels of the seven churches in Rev 2–3 to be seven bishops who presided in the seven principal cities of the proconsular Asia.

63. Potter, Church Government, 181–82.

64. Potter, Church Government, 8.

65. Ibid., 8–9.

66. Ibid., 184–85.

67. Ibid., 10.

68. According to O. C. Quick, “it is recognized that if an ordained minister is not available, a layman or woman should preform [sic] the rite [of baptism] in case of need” (Quick, “Doctrine of the Church of England,” 126).

69. Potter, Church Government, 225–26.

70. Ibid., 297.

71. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1074, emphasis mine.

72. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 530. For another exhaustive source on Presbyterianism, see Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity.

73. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 530.

74. For a detailed explanation of this office and its correlation with the offices of pastor and overseer, see chapter 3.

75. Luke 15:25; John 8:9; 1 Tim 5:1; Matt 16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47; 27:1, 3, 12, 20, 41; 26:57; Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 16:4; 1 Tim 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5; Jas 5:14, to list a few.

76. Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 92. They support this assertion with Paul’s intertwining usages of the words in Acts 20:17 and 20:28; 1 Tim 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; Phil 1:1; 1 Pet 5:1–2, pointing out that although episkopountes is a variant reading, the very fact that many manuscripts include it gives evidence that many adult Christians in the early church believed that “elders” were also “overseers.”

77. Ibid., 94.

78. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 530.

79. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 584.

80. Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 95. See also Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 582.

81. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 530.

82. Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 123–24. See also Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 588–89.

83. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 531.

84. Needless to say, the texts nowhere explicitly state anything about local presbyteries, but that does not stop Presbyterian scholars like R. L. Reymond, in whose opinion theologians must wean themselves away “from reading Scripture texts in an unnatural, wooden, literalistic way,” (quoted in Brand and Norman, Perspectives on Church Government, 81, emphasis mine). From a more objective perspective, Berkhof admits that “Scripture does not contain an explicit command to the effect that the local churches of a district must form an organic union. Neither does it furnish us with an example of such a union. In fact, it represents the local churches as individual entities without any external bond of union” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 590). Berkhof then proceeds to argue for Presbyterian connectionalism from the “essential nature of the church . . . a spiritual organism in which all the constituent parts are vitally related to one another” (ibid.).

85. Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 108. Reymond notes the presence of the apostles in the council (Acts 15:4), but dismisses the uniqueness of that element by deducing that the apostles were acting as elders in the church. He also speculates that the Jerusalem Council included some Antioch elders/overseers meeting as delegated commissioners with the Jerusalem presbytery in a general assembly (ibid.). See also Taylor, “Presbyterianism,” 80.

86. Ibid., 109.

87. Ibid., 110. The “visible Christian unity” and the spiritual gifts that teach the interdependent nature of the body seem to make much better sense when applied on a local church level rather than a denominational level. Furthermore, Reymond may find himself far out on a limb in making such a statement, considering Berkhof’s affirmation of the autonomy of the local church: “Every local church is a complete church of Christ, fully equipped with everything that is required for its government. It has absolutely no need of it that any government should be imposed upon it from without. And not only that, but such an imposition would be absolutely contrary to its nature . . . The idea that a classis (presbytery) or synod can simply impose whatever it pleases on a particular church is essentially Roman Catholic” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 589–90).

88. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1077.

89. Ibid.

90. 1 Tim 5:17 reads: “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” The Presbyterian understanding of this passage is that “the elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor [namely, both ‘honor’ and ‘honoraruim’]” (Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 121). As Knight observes, Paul is speaking here of “a subgroup of the ‘overseers’ that consists of those who are especially gifted by God to teach, as opposed to other overseers, who must all ‘be able to teach’” (Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 233, emphasis Knight’s).

91. Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 121–23.

92. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 531.

93. Ibid.

94. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 600, emphasis Berkhof’s.

95. Ibid. Public sins encompass not merely sins that are committed in public, but also sins that give public and general offense.

96. Ibid., emphasis Berkhof’s. One would naturally wonder how many Presbyterian churches today still practice a disciplinary process that is similar to the one outlined by Berkhof in the first part of the twentieth century.

97. Ibid.

98. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 531.

99. Ibid. It is noteworthy that this concept of later Presbyterianism is quite divergent from the actual practice in Calvin’s Geneva.

100. Garrett, “Congregation-Led Church,” 157.

101. Akin, “Single-Elder-Led Church,” 27.

102. Saucy, Church in God’s Program, 114.

103. Kern, Christianity as Organized, 376.

104. Ibid.

105. Ibid., 377. It was Browne, who, due to the violent reaction to his severe opposition to the Establishment, was forced to flee, along with his whole congregation, to the town of Middleburg, Holland, where he wrote a well-known tract in defense of the congregational views named “Reformation without Tarrying for Any.” To be fair, a man called Richard Fitz formed the first Separatist church in Britain in 1567 London, but it had a very checkered and short history. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones considers the first real Congregational church to be the one established by Henry Jacob in Southwark, London, in 1616. For more on Lloyd-Jones’ logic, see Lloyd-Jones, “First Congregational Church.”

106. Kern, 380.

107. This style of government can be seen most often in Baptist churches.

108. These varieties are most common within the congregational model. Grudem adds a few others, such as leadership by a corporate board, pure democracy, and “no government but the Holy Spirit” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 935–36). Additionally, a staff-led model seems to have gained popularity in the last decade among larger churches with multiple staff.

109. Garrett, Systematic Theology, 586–87.

110. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1079. Dana and Sipes cite the following examples in support of this assertion: “(a) When Paul secured an offering from the Gentile churches of the West for the destitute saints in Palestine he had the local churches to appoint messengers to accompany him in carrying the offering to its destination (2 Cor 8:19, 23). (b) New Testament churches determined their own customs (1 Cor 11:16). (c) Each church settled its own difficulties without any interference from without, except in the capacity of advice (1 Cor 5:4, 5; 6:4). (d) A local church had the right to determine its own policies (Acts 15)” (Dana and Sipes, Manual of Ecclesiology, 36–37).

111. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1080.

112. There are additional texts that provide indirect evidence of Congregationalism present in Scripture, including: Acts 1:21–26; 9:26–28; 1 Cor 16:3; 2 Cor 8:22–24; Phil 2:25; Rev 2:14–16, 20–25.

113. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1079.

114. Garrett, “Congregation-Led Church,” 171.

115. Taught in 1 Pet 2:4–10; Rev 1:5b–6; 5:9–10; 20:6

116. Garrett, “Congregation-Led Church,” 184.

117. Consistent of two grades: elders and deacons (Erickson, Christian Theology, 1080).

118. Merkle, “Elder and Overseer.”

119. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 928.

120. See Acts 2:46; 12:12, 17; 21:18; Rom 16:3–5, 10–11; 14–15, 23; Phlm 2; Col 4:15; 1 Cor 16:15, 19.

121. Akin, “Single-Elder-Led Church,” 65. See also Strong, Systematic Theology, 914–17; Carson, “Church, Authority in,” 249. Campbell suggests that the leadership of each group was naturally assumed by the head of the household—the one who would have a house large enough to fit the group and who would open it for such meetings (Campbell, Elders, 151–53).

122. Akin, “Single-Elder-Led Church,” 65.

123. Ibid., 66.

124. Strong, Systematic Theology, 916. However, we know for a fact that at least one of the churches listed in Rev 2–3 had multiple-eldership and not a single elder/pastor. See Ephesians; Acts 20:17.

125. Campbell, Elders, 160.

126. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 933. See 1 Tim 5:17–18.

127. Ibid.

128. See Acts 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1. Pointing to Acts 14:23, White adds that understanding “elders” merely in the sense of one elder per church runs counter to the plain meaning of “elders for them in every church” (White, “Plural-Elder-Led Church,” 271).

129. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1080.

130. Ibid.

131. Cowen, Who Rules the Church? 85. See also Samuel E. Waldron, “Plural-Elder Congregationalist’s Response,” 118–21.

132. MacArthur, Master’s Plan, 236.