|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Do Thou Thy benediction give
On all who teach, on all who learn,
That all Thy church may holier live,
And every lamp more brightly burn.
Give those who teach pure hearts and wise,
Faith, hope, and love, all warmed by prayer;
Themselves first training for the skies,
They best will raise their people there.
Give those that learn the willing ear,
The spirit meek, the guileless mind;
Such gifts will make the lowliest here
Far better than a kingdom find.
John Armstrong (1813-1856)
I. Introduction: Evidence of Structure in the New Testament Church
There is ample New Testament evidence that already in the first century the church in its local manifestations had formal organization. This is not to say that from the beginning the local assemblies had a mandated and complete form. Rather, there are certain basic principles laid down for the church which provide direction for an emergent and more fully developed form as need arose (see e.g., Acts 6:1-6).
Authority, and thus the basis for church order and organization, was vested in the apostles in the early days of the church. On the basis of principles already given by the Lord (e.g., Matt. 18:15-20) and in light of the nature (from an historical standpoint) of the apostolic office, the apostles prepared the church for the transition from apostolic to local church authority. This is evident in several ways.
A. Transition of Authority from Apostle to Assembly
This change in the locus of authority may be seen in the area of discipline. In Acts 8:18-21 the Apostle Peter acts to discipline Simon Magus. Later in the first century, in 1 Corinthians 5:13, Paul directs the church to act. Still later, near the end of the first century the church in Ephesus is seen acting on its own initiative (Rev. 2:2).
B. Progress of Revelation
There is evidence of basic organization in the earliest epistles (e.g., James 5:14; 1 Thess. 5:12 ff.) but the later Pauline epistles, especially the pastorals, give greater attention to these concerns (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:1-13; 5:1-25).
C. Specific Examples of Structure
Among the evidences of organizational structure in the early church the following may be noted: officers (Phil. 1:1); congregational elections (Acts 6:5-6; 2 Cor. 8:19); regular meetings (Acts 20:7); rolls (1 Tim. 5:9); standards for membership (1 Cor. 5:13); stated relationships between leaders and membership (1 Thess. 5:12 ff.; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:2-4); specific religious rites or forms (Acts 2:41; 1 Cor. 11:23 ff.); a somewhat loose but nonetheless identifiable liturgy or order of worship (1 Cor. 14:26-33); practice common among the churches (1 Cor. 7:17; 11:16; 14:33); systematic giving (1 Cor. 16:1-2). [i]
One notable example of structure in the earliest church of all, in Jerusalem, is found in Acts 2:42. We are told that these first believers had a regular practice, a liturgy if you please, which included four elements.
There was first of all a body of doctrine, set forth by the apostles, which became the norm for the church. This was probably presented through teaching and preaching. Secondly, there was continuing fellowship. Thirdly, the gathered believers joined one another in the regular observance of the Lord's Supper ("the breaking of bread") in their worship. "Placed alongside continuance in the apostle's doctrine, fellowship (koinonia), and prayers, the breaking of bread most surely signifies the communion meals." [ii] Lastly, they continually gave themselves to prayer.
II. Membership in the Local Church
The principle that all things are to be done in a fitting and orderly manner (1 Cor. 14:40) would strongly argue for some kind of formal membership. Further, the analogous relationship between organism (body) and organization (local assembly) calls for the same. No more does the New Testament conceive of the body of Christ without members (and thus membership) than it conceives of a local manifestation of that body without members.
The very nature of the church as a communion (fellowship) of saints calls for membership, as well, for one can only share things common at a local level if one has things common.
A. The Need for Membership
The scriptures declare that at the time of salvation the new believer is brought into fellowship with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3). By being brought into fellowship one is not only associated with the head of the body but with the members as well. Such fellowship becomes both a demonstration of the spiritual union and unity of believers with one another and with God and an occasion for mutual interchange as each part of the body contributes to the other parts.
At the local level, absence of such vital signs is both a denial of these great truths relating to the body of Christ and an indication of a moribund situation, at best. Spiritual gifts are given to be exercised in community (1 Cor. 14). Mutual stimulation of one another to love and good works cannot take place in isolation (Heb. 10:24-25).
B. The Fact of Membership
While it is admitted that local church membership is an implicit rather than explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is a good deal of data to be considered. Any given assembly is made up of those called to himself by Jesus Christ, and therefore is not the result but rather the occasion of a membership list, but this does not mean that such a list is out of order or unimportant. In the early church:
1. A record was kept of numbers (Acts 2:41; 4'14)
2. Registers were kept of widows in the care of the church (1 Tim. 5:9)
3. Elections were conducted which presumes a basis for determining who could and could not vote (Acts 6:2-5)
4. Discipline was exercised even to the point of some severance from an identifiable group (Matt. 18:1; 1 Cor. 5:13)
It does not seem reasonable to assume that this meant exclusion from the hearing of the preached Word; i.e., from stated meetings of the church. The aim of all discipline was ultimate restoration which comes through the remediation accomplished by the preached Word of God. The suggestion, then, is that it was exclusion from a registered membership which would require the action of that identifiable membership.
C. Qualifications for Membership
1. Regeneration
In the New Testament one is seen as belonging to a local church on the basis of his expressed faith in Jesus Christ as Savior (1 Cor. 1:2; see also Acts 2:41, 47; 5:14).
2. Baptism in water as a believer
What is simultaneous in the spiritual realm as it relates to the organism (regeneration and Spirit baptism) can only be carried out one at a time in the organizational or external realm. They must not be dissociated, however. While the rite in no way alters one's relationship to the body of Christ the practice of the early church always was to follow the receiving of Christ with public witness thereto in water baptism (Acts 2:41; 8:12, 38; 9:18; 10:48) . Note well, that in Acts 2:41 the adding to the previous 120 (Acts 1:15) who constituted the church in Jerusalem followed baptism.
D. Some Implications of Membership
Membership in a local church has significant privileges and correspondingly significant responsibilities.
|
Privilege |
Responsibility |
|
Care for one’s soul (Heb. 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12) |
Submission to leadership (Heb. 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12-13) |
|
Mutual stimulation to love and good works (Heb. 10:24) |
Assembling with the saints (Heb. 10:25) |
|
Teaching from the Word (Gal. 6:6) |
Support of the teacher (Cal. 6;6; 1 Cor. 9:11-14) |
|
Reward for service (Gal. 6:19) |
Service undaunted by circumstances (Gal. 6:9) |
III. Government of the Local Church
A. Guiding Principles for Determining Governmental Form
When considered in terms of current expressions or types of church government (see below), the New Testament does not explicitly detail a particular and exclusive "form." Nonetheless, there is basic data given in the New Testament which all must consider in settling on a particular form of government. The scriptures do not allow for endless innovation in this matter.
1. The pattern provided by consideration of the organism, the body of Christ
a) There is one head—Jesus Christ
Any governmental form, just facilitate the unitary headship of Christ and recognize that the local church is in this sense a theocracy.
b) There is one body
Any governmental form must evidence at the local level the unity and community of believers. Thus it must be recognized that the local church must not be governed autocratically, oligarchically, or even democratically but congregationally. "The Holy Spirit does not rule through one, a few, of the many, but through the body in its diversity,
2. The pattern provided through consideration of the officers (see below)
The emphasis is placed on equipped (spiritually gifted and qualified) people (leaders) rather than on external form, although this is not to suggest that form is unimportant.
3. The pattern provided through consideration of the historica1 record (i.e., New Testament case studies)
Two questions must be asked and answered in light of this data.
a) Where did final human responsibility rest?
With an apostle? elder(s)? group of churches? the local congregation? For reasons given below in the discussion of the congregational form of government it is believed that it is with the local assembly that final human responsibility rests.
b) How much government is necessary?
The early church organized as the need arose. This principle should deliver us from the kind of legalistic rigidity that denies any form or limits form to what is specified in the New Testament.
B. Major Types of Church Government
1. No-system
Traditionally Quakers and Plymouth Brethren have rejected all forms of church government as inimical to the spirituality of the church. "They stress instead the inner working of the Holy Spirit; he exerts his influence upon and guides individual believers in a direct fashion rather than through organizational institutions.” [iii] To a large degree this is a reaction to excesses end abuses growing out of other systems, especially from the established episcopalian form of the Church of England.
2. The episcopalian system
The term derives from the Greek word episkopos meaning "overseer" and is usually translated "bishop" This system provides for government of the church by bishops, which group is self-perpetuating and often viewed as being in direct succession from the apostles. They alone determine who are priests (presbyters) and deacons and thus authority is centered in the bishop or house of bishops both for the local church and the entire denomination. This system may take at least three forms.
i. Papal or Roman Catholic. All authority is placed in one bishop, the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra (in the exercise of the office) in matters of faith and practice.
ii. Anglican and Protestant Episcopal. Authority is collegial, that is, it pertains to a body of associates engaged in a common task having rights mutually shared.
iii. Methodist. Authority is collegial but usually no claim is made to authority traced to the apostles.
This system is usually supported by an appeal to early church history (e.g., as set forth in the writings of Ignatius) and then by arguing backward to the New Testament. If bishops were in existence around the turn of the first century, it is argued, surely there is evidence for such in the New Testament. However, the term "bishop" as used in the New Testament is used of the same office as referred to by the term "elder."
Appeal must be made to individuals such as James who is viewed as setting a precedent in light of his prominence and authority. Careful examination, however, will show that he is presented more as “the presiding officer among a group than an authority over them."[iv] Likewise, Timothy and Titus are cited as having authority over several churches, yet "no titles are given to them, and no provision is made for the continuation of their particular position, which would be the case if they were initiating an office of bishop." [v]
Saucy also offers a good analysis and refutation of the concept of apostolic succession citing "the absence of instructions for succession," "the absence of early historical succession," "the uniqueness of the apostolic office," and "the priesthood of all believers" as reasons for rejecting this doctrine (pp. 108-112).
3. The representative or presbyterian system
The term presbyterian derives from the Greek word presbuteros meaning "elder." This system provides for government of the church by elected representatives. These representatives fall into two categories: ruling elders elected and ordained by the local congregation and teaching elders (ministers) ordained by other teaching elders. The denomination is ruled by a series of church courts or groupings beginning at the local level with the session (comprised of all teaching and ruling elders), to the presbytery at the district level, to the synod at the next level, to the general assembly at the national level.
This system is exemplified in Presbyterian and Reformed churches. It allows for what Berkhof calls "relative autonomy that is self-government with certain qualifications and limitations” (see pp. 589-590).
There is no question that pastoral responsibility in the church is committed to elders in the New Testament (see later discussion). In some sense they are expected to rule in the local church (1 Tim. 3:4-5; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:17) but his is qualified by the prominent place given to the congregation in certain matters (see below).
The primary biblical basis offered for authoritative representative groups at a level above the local church is the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35) and the subsequent carrying of its findings to other churches (Acts 16:1-5, esp. v. 4). While recognizing that "the Jerusalem Council does present an example of interchurch discussion and agreement" Saucy goes on to state that "it does not clearly establish an authoritative organizational structure over the local church." This is based on two observations.
In the first place, it is evident that the decision of the Antioch church to go to Jerusalem was purely voluntary.... Second, when the events preceding the council are carefully observed, it will be seen that Paul and Barnabas went not as inferiors to receive the correct doctrine from Jerusalem, but rather because of their disputations with those who had come from Jerusalem (Acts 15:1). [vi]
4. The congregational system
This system provides for the government of the local church by the congregation functioning as a unified body of believers indwelt individually by the Holy Spirit and guided corporately by the Holy Spirit in response to the headship of Christ. Each local assembly is viewed as autonomous with its single head, Jesus Christ, expressing himself through the congregation.
All elected officials, whether elders (pastors), deacons, etc., enjoy any authority by virtue of the office to which they have been designated (which in the case of elders and deacons derives from scripture) by the vote of the congregation (whose authority derives from Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit).
What is entailed in this system?
a) Its requirements
1) Unqualified autonomy
i. There is no biblical evidence that any bishop/elder/pastor or deacon had any authority beyond the local church. Even apostles, who had such authority and on occasion exercised it (e.g. Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), deferred to the local assembly in specific cases (see e.g., 1 Cor. 5:4, Acts 15:22).
ii. The final authority for discipline rests squarely with the local church (Matt. 18:15-17; cf. 1 Cor. 5:4-5; 2 Thess. 3:6-15).
iii. Following the apostolic age, and to some degree during that period, the local church is to select its own leadership and representatives. This is best seen in the qualifications for bishop/elder and deacon given in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 (see also Acts 6:3-5; 11:22; 14:27; 15:3-4; 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:19).
iv. The local church, as over against a hierarchy, is viewed in the New Testament as the guardian of doctrine and ordinances (see e.g., 1 Cor. 14:26 ff.; 1 Cor. 11:17-34; 1 John 4:1: 3 John 9-11).
v. "The church, together with its officers, rendered decisions (Acts 15:22), received delegates (Acts 15:4: 18:27), and sent out solicitors (2 Cor. 8:19) and missionaries (Acts 15:4; 18:27). [vii]
2) Congregational authority
i. As believer-priests the members have equal, right of access to God both individually and collectively (1 Pet. 2:4-5, 9; Rev. 1:6; Heb. 10:19-22). When viewed collectively as assembled saints they are a democracy (in the sense of the rule of the people).
By nature of his office the pastor has a more authoritative voice with the people but his vote is of equal weight with that of any other member. With God his voice and vote are as influential as every other believer priest and no more.
ii. As a unified body (1 Cor. 12:27) believers may be the means of the expression of the glorified Christ’s corporate will through their corporate indwelling by the Holy Sprit (1 Cor. 3:16). As such they are responsible to effect edification, propriety, and order in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:26, 40).
b) Its allowances
1) Plurality of elders
The congregational system of church government allows for plurality of leadership (as it relates to both deacons and elders).
i. The diaconate. None question the wisdom or legitimacy of multiple deacons (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13). The number is left open by scripture. (Acts 6 does not prescribe seven, even for that situation, and there is even some question as to whether those men were deacons in the usual sense of the office since the word diakonos is not used in the passage.)
ii. The eldership. There is no question that the New Testament indicates, and thus allows for, churches with multiple elders (Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1). It is doubtful that such is required in every situation although it may be wise in more cases than are generally acknowledged. The problems which may arise with multiple eldership may often be traced to misunderstanding, administrative inadequacy or ego rather than to wrong doctrine.
It is sometimes said that plurality of elders is destructive of autonomy and congregational authority. This need not be so. It is an unfortunate misunderstanding to equate this concept with a presbyterian form of church government. Autonomy is only surrendered if the local church allows some outside group veto power over its internal affairs. Congregationalism is only surrendered if final authority is vested in some body other that the congregation. That principle can be compromised as well by a dictatorial pastor as by an overbearing team of elders.
Plurality of elders does not necessarily call for absolute equality of elders. That is, it does allow for a primus inter pares arrangement. Such a principle is latent in 1 Timothy 5:1. Distinction is made regarding an elder's worthiness on the basis of whether that person "rulers well" and whether there is evidence of "working hard at preaching and teaching."
2) Interchurch relationship
The congregational system also allows for interchurch relationship. Autonomy and congregationalism do not call for isolated independence. Since every believer who is joined together in a local assembly is likewise a member of the body of Christ in its organismic and universal form failure to pursue some kind or degree of ecclesiastical inter-relationship is a denial of the unity of the church.
To insure against compromise of autonomy and congregational control the extent of such cooperative relationships must be measured against fundamental issues of faith, practice, and concern as was demonstrated in the early church. Saucy cites numerous examples of such interchurch relationship:
Corinthian believers were to see themselves united "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ" who is "both theirs and ours" (1 Cor. 1: 2). All the churches had a common faith (Eph. 4:5; Titus 1:4; Jude 3, 1 Pet. 1:1) and shared the apostolic letters (Col. 4:16; Gal. 1:2). God-given teachers were received in all churches (Acts 18:24-28; 1 Cor. 16:12; Rom. 16:3; 3 John 5-8), and cooperation in discipline was expected (2 John 9-11). Unity of faith and purpose is further evident in the thanksgiving expressed for faith and love of one church toward other churches (1 Thess. 1:7-9; 2 Thess. 1:3-4; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:4). Furthermore, this unity necessitates seeking counsel and understanding between churches, as evidenced in the Jerusalem council (Ac 15). There were common customs and practices of worship (1 Co 11:6; 14:33, 36), and a spirit of unity was conveyed in salutation from church to church (1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:16; Phil. 4:22).
Besides the cooperation evident in the unity of faith and practices, churches aided one another materially (1 Cor. 16:1; Rom. 15:26). They supported missionary activity among the churches, both materially and spiritually (2 Cor. 11:9; Phil. 4:15; 1 Cor. 16:6; 2 Cor. 1:16; Rom. 15:24). All of the practices of cooperation among the churches are voluntary and yet are obligatory because of the unity of the body of Christ. [viii]
Following his discussion of the various forms of church government Erickson concludes that the congregational form is the most acceptable. [ix] He does acknowledge that in light of "the need for orderliness" (cf. 1 Cor. 14:40) there is probably the need for "a degree of representative government" as long as the chosen leaders are "conscious of their answerability to those whom they represent."
Equally worthy of note, along with' his conclusion, is the method he uses to reach it. In any attempt to reach a conclusion about the "biblical" form of church government there is one formidable difficulty and another attendant problem. Erickson rightly observes that "there is no prescriptive exposition of what the government of the church is to be like." [x] Consequently, we must turn to the merely descriptive passages for our information and in them there seems to be "no unitary pattern." [xi] Some passages appear to favor one form and others another. He points out that, "we must turn to the principles which we find in the New Testament and attempt to construct our governmental system upon them."[xii] In order to ascertain such principles it is proposed that two question's be asked. “First, in what direction was church government moving within the New Testament period?" To this his answer, correctly I believe, is, "There is no indication that the church was moving toward a specific form of church government." [xiii] "The second question we must ask is, what are the reasons for church government? What values is it intended to promote and preserve?" The three answers he offers are: 1) The need for order; 2) the priesthood of the believer—"Each person is capable of relating to God directly" (e.g., Rom. 5:1-5; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:14-16); and 3) the important place of each person in the body as individually gifted "suggests that the input into decision making should be broadly based." [xiv]
Using this exemplary methodology he reaches the conclusion noted above: the preferred form is congregational church government utilizing a degree of representation wherein the chosen leaders are accountable to the group as a whole.
IV. Offices in the Local Church
A. Introduction
1. The relationship between gifts and offices
i. Gifts are bestowed by God (1 Cor. 12:11, 28); offices are conferred by the local church (Acts 6:5).
ii. Gifts are sovereignly given to all believers (1 Cor. 12:11); offices are to be filled according to specified standards (1 Time. 3:1-13). You need not "qualify" to receive a gift.
iii. Gifts are related to general ministry and the body at large (Eph.4:1-l6) as well as to the local assembly (1 Cor. 12:27-28), while offices relate to specific ministry and to the local church only (cf. 1 Tim 3:5). For example, the gift of administration may be exercised at large but as an elder or deacon only locally.
iv. One need not hold office to possess or exercise a gift, but one should not hold office, as biblically described, without possessing qualifying gifts.
2. The relationship between ministry and office
a) Ministry is universal; office is particular
This follows from the fact that all believers are priests (1 Pet. 2:4-10) gifted by God (1 Cor. 12:11) with responsibility to serve (Rom. 12:1), on the one hand; while officers must not only be gifted believer-priests, but also qualified and selected for office, on the other.
b) Ministry relates to the service of all in general; office relates to the service of some in leadership
Task or ministry distinction (e.g., teaching, preaching, administering the ordinances, direction of public ministry) does not arise from office or ordination but from divine endowment, holy character, and training. It is the task of the officer to provide training (pattern and instruction), organization, and administration.
3. The relationship between the local church and offices
Ephesians 4:11 ff. identifies a variety of gifted people whom God gives to the church for the purpose of equipping the saints to build up the body of Christ. Immediately, the principle of the leaders and the led is established. All are ministers (servants), but some serve as equippers and others serve as the equipped. Whether one functions as an apostle or prophet (in the laying of the foundation, Eph. 2:20) or as an evangelist or pastor and teacher (in the erection of the building, Eph. 2:21- 22) it is with a view to preparing "God's people for works of service" which will bring bodily growth (Eph. 4:12, 16 NIV).
Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are gifts to the body but not officers for the local church. It is the responsibility of the local assembly to recognize the presence of such gifts in their midst and to harness them as elders or deacons (or in other less official ways). God alone can provide evangelists or pastors and teachers to the church, but the church can select an evangelist or a pastor and teacher as an elder and charge him with the equipment of its local membership.
B. The Office of Elder
1. Terminology
a) Elder (presbuteros)
Originally this referred to an elderly man (cf. 1 Tim. 5:1-3), but ecclesiastically it came to refer to "the dignity and authority which were associated with mature spiritual experience and understanding" (Saucy, op. cit., p.142). The significance lies not so much in the accumulation of years but of wisdom. This term, then, highlights the office with its dignity and authority (see 1 Tim. 5:17).
b) Bishop (episkopos)
The word literally means an overseer and refers to one who watches over or cares for the church. There is always an implication of gracious concern associated with the term. This term emphasizes the function of oversight (see Phil. 1:1).
c) Pastor (poimēn)
A third term often used in our contemporary culture to refer to the office of elder is pastor. Technically speaking this is a usage which tends to foster confusion between the gift (pastor) and the office (elder). While it is entirely possible that one who is given as pastor to the body may likewise function in the official capacity of elder, it is likewise possible that an elder may not be a pastor and yet legitimately fill that office. Yet others may function in the body in pastoral ways as Sunday School teachers, deacons, or other capacities (official or unofficial).
The term pastor means shepherd and is related to a verb meaning to function as a shepherd, to lead to pasture. It carries with it all the poignancy evoked by the image of a shepherd as he provides care, protection, nourishment, end guidance to his sheep. This term emphasizes the function of provision (see Eph. 4:11).
d) Interrelationship of the terms
Most scholars recognize that the first two terms refer to the same office in the New Testament. The third term refers not to office but to one aspect of eldership or spiritual oversight. This is demonstrated as follows:
i. The terms elder and bishop are used interchangeably in Acts 20:17, 28 and Titus 1:5, 7; (see also 1 Tim. 3:4 and 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2).
ii. Elders are exhorted to function as shepherds (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-2).
2. Qualifications
a) Personal qualifications
In relation to himself he is to be:
i. Temperate, that is in control of his spirit (1 Tim. 3:2).