Pastor Mark Dever of Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C, has asked the following in his book, A Display Of God’s Glory:
Does Scripture deal clearly with questions about the…organization
of the church? And if so, what exactly does Scripture teach about it? Of
course, we Christians believe that Scripture is sufficient for our preaching and
discipling, for our spirituality and joy in following Christ, for church growth
and our understanding of evangelism. But is Scripture even meant to tell us how
we are to organize our lives together as Christians in our churches, or are we
left simply to our own investigation of best practices? Is our church [organization] a matter
indifferent? Is it a matter to be determined simply pragmatically, by whatever
seems to work best and most effectively to avoid problems?
Many
Christians who are otherwise very serious about details of theology and what
the Bible teaches have answered these questions posed by Dever something like
this: “Well, the New Testament isn’t that specific about how the church is to
be organized.” Elsewhere it has been said: “What’s striking, therefore, is how
most evangelicals have pushed the question of church structure into the
category of nonessential and…of non-importance. The gospel is important, even
essential, we say. Church structure is neither. And since questions of church
structure only divide Christians…it’s best to leave it out of the conversation
altogether.”[1]
Both
Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman go on in their respective books to make the same
point I want to make in this blog post, namely, the Bible does give us
specifics about Church organization and so it is not a matter that is simply
left up to our own pragmatism.
Ah,
but many of you will quickly reply, “Tom, think about all the different
denominations and church structures represented by them” (examples: Methodist,
Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran). “Doesn’t this diversity suggest to us
that we simply cannot come to consensus about what the Bible teaches?” My
answer may surprise you, but I believe we can (or ought to) come to consensus
about the core truths. Obviously, this side of heaven we will probably not all
agree on all the specific details and how the core truths are balanced with
each other. Nevertheless, I believe there are some points to which we all
should hold that will prohibit certain forms of church government.
A
particular form of church government that I want to address that should be
prohibited is that of pure congregationalism (aka pure democracy). This is
important because it hits at the heart of the question, “Who’s in charge in the
church?” I want to answer that question with the following seven points. As I
do that, I trust you will see that the Church of Jesus Christ (and even its
local manifestations—each local congregation) is never to be run merely by the
consensus of the masses.[2]
1. Who Is Ultimately In Charge Is Jesus Christ
This
should be beyond doubt, for the New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ is “the
head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18 [see also Eph. 1:22]). Most Christians would affirm this in one way
or the other. What is important is that we operate as Christians in the Church
in such a way that we exemplify this truth. I believe there are two primary
ways this is done.
To
begin, we must regard Jesus Christ as Lord and bow our hearts and wills to him
in all we are and do (John 14:15; 15:1-16; Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:10-11). The very
essence of what it means to know Jesus Christ as Savior is to be his follower
(Mt. 4:19), in other words, to obey him (John 10:27-28; 14:15). Where this
leads is that we should care more about how Jesus wants us to think and behave
more than we care about the opinions of friends, co-workers, family, neighbors,
or even our traditions.
Additionally,
we must make sure we do not cloud the reality that Jesus is the ultimate
authority by either over-emphasizing the authority of local church leaders,
denominational leaders, or that of a congregation.
This
leads us to our next point where we consider the practical authority in the
church.
2. The Means Through Which Jesus Christ Exercises His
Authority Is Through His Word
Jesus
made it very clear that the only ultimate binding source of authority for his
people is the Word of God (Matthew 15:1-20; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17).
Specifically, what this implies is that our goal should be to hear what God
says in his Word and to do it (James 1:22-25). When it comes to the purpose of
the church, the main ministries of the church, how the church is to operate,
how a person comes to Jesus Christ, how a person grows in Jesus Christ, how we
deal with conflict, and all other areas, we must submit to the Scriptures.
Again,
any way of viewing the church that places my rights, my preferences, my past
experiences, my traditions, leaders, congregation, or anything else above the authority
of the Scriptures should be rejected.
So,
this leads to the third point.
3. Church Structure Should Reflect The Ultimate
Authority Of Jesus Christ Through His Word
Whatever
the structure of the church is, it must not deny the first two truths. But, we
need to keep massaging the biblical teaching on church government out to gain
more specific guidance. To do that we continue on with our next point.
4. The Manner In
Which This Is Exercised In The Church Is Through Word-Subordinate Faithful
Leaders
What
is the key manner in which God has provided that the church can be guided by
and equipped in the Scriptures for the work of ministry and life? Paul answers this in Ephesians 4:7-16, where
he teaches that God has given empowering grace for the Christian life to each
believer, yet this grace will be used well only in proportion to the extent
that believers make use of gifts God has given the church. What are these
gifts? They are leaders: apostles,
prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers. These leaders are to equip the
saints for the work of ministry and also for the God-glorifying unity that
should be present among us as we mature in Christ.
In
those letters in which Paul instructed two young pastors, it is clarified that
one of the chief ways in which leaders (especially pastors/elders) carry out
this equipping ministry is to teach the Bible faithfully, to guide the church
faithfully to follow the Bible, and to make disciples of Jesus Christ who are
faithful to the Bible (1 Tim. 3:2, 15; 4:6-16; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:1-2, 15, 24-26;
3:14-17; 4:1-5; Titus 1:5-10; 2:1-15). When we put this together with the
reality that the Bible is the only ultimate binding source of authority (Mt.
15) and that Christ-like leadership is servant leadership (Mt. 20:20-28), we
conclude that leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must first and foremost be
willing to subordinate themselves to Jesus Christ by submitting to his Word and
being willing to stand on that Word and teach that Word faithfully, no matter
the personal cost. Simply-put, Christian leaders love Jesus Christ and love the
church they are serving best by faithful adherence to the Scriptures—in lifestyle
and teaching (1 Cor. 13:6; 1 Tim. 4:16).
No
Christian leader will perfectly model Christ-like Bible-grounded behavior and
no leader will infallibly teach the true Scriptures. However, they must be
reasonably faithful humble men (1 Peter 5:5-6) who are poor in spirit (Mt. 5:3)
and who mourn over their sin and seek to fight their sin, rather than cover it
up (Mt. 5:4; Eph. 6:14). One of the helps God has given to leaders in the
church that they might be accountable to these standards is a biblical design
that calls for multiple elders, a team of equal shepherds who pastor the flock
(examples: Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:1). One of the strongest checks
against a power-hungry or godless leader is the presence of other godly
biblically-informed men who see themselves as a team that is to sharpen and
hold each other accountable to their calling.[3]
In
the same manner, then, that God gives subordinate authority to individuals in
other walks of life (e.g. parents to lead, guide, and teach their children as
Word-subordinate individuals, Eph. 6:4; Titus 2:3-4), so God gives subordinate
authority to elders/pastors in the church. Their calling is not to lord their
leadership or promote themselves, instead it is to call people to submit to
Jesus Christ. Ideally, the way this happens is that faithful pastors/elders
model and teach God’s Word, so their lives and doctrine can be followed (1 Tim.
4:12, 16; Heb. 13:7). In relation to such leaders, the rest of the church is
commanded: “Obey your leaders and submit
to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls” (Heb. 13:17). If we
carefully follow these first four points, our conclusion should be that the
only reason leaders should be opposed or confronted is if their life or their
teaching do not measure up to Scripture. And, even in these two areas there
must be at least two or three witnesses to such an infraction even before a
charge is given and received, not much-less believed (1 Tim. 5:19). The reason most
likely is because elders/pastors are regularly out in front of people teaching
and leading and can be in many situations where a hearer or congregant may be
upset by their teaching or in which their actions may be misunderstood. So,
safeguards have been put in place.
When
we grasp the manner in which the Lord has called us to safeguard the truth and
ultimate authority of his Word in a local church (through elders/pastors who
are called to lead by leading us to Jesus Christ), we must understand that pure
congregationalism that places a congregation over elders in authority is simply
not biblical.
But,
this does not mean elders have absolute authority and congregants have no say.
We must continue.
5. This
Authoritative Word Affirms The Priesthood Of Believers, So All Are Ministers
And In Some Way The Congregation Should Have Subordinate Input
The
very Bible that is our ultimate binding source of authority to communicate the
will of our Lord tells us that all believers are ministers, all the church
exercises the authority to admit and remove members, and the entire body
comprises the priesthood and temple that mediate the presence and mission of
God (Mt. 16:19; 18:18-20; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 218-19, 22; 4:12; 1
Peter 2:4-10). What is more, we have examples of very important decisions in
the New Testament being made by leaders in conjunction with input from the
congregation (Acts 15:22-23; 2 Cor. 2:6). Since each believer is baptized with the
Spirit into the one body and each believer is empowered by one and the same
Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11-13), we should assume that all true believers should be
able to contribute to the ministry and direction of the church in some way.
Yet,
the church should do all this in such a way that it is subordinate to the Word
of God. So, the congregation is not “over” the leaders and the leaders are not “over”
the congregation in some hierarchical flow chart. All submit to Christ by
submitting to his Word. Since leaders are given to equip and point to Christ by
their teaching and example, it is true that there is a call to submit to
leaders. Yet, the next point must always be remembered.
6. However This Is
Worked Out In Detail, There Will Be A “Dance” Between Leaders And The
Congregation
In
the same way that a husband providing spiritual leadership in his home is
involved in a dance (he knows his wife does many things better than him and
also as a servant leader he wants her input and wants to lead her by serving and
empowering her), so also elders/pastors are involved in a dance with the
congregation. It is for the congregation to focus upon submitting as much as
they can and should. It is for leaders to focus on submitting to Christ and his
Word and thus serve the congregation in this way as much as they can.
Congregants should want to follow, leaders lead by and through Christ, but
leaders should also want to listen to the congregation (of course, not to the
point of nullifying clear biblical truth).
7. Though
Differences Will Continue Between Different Denominations, We Are Not To
Conclude The Sky Is The Limit To The Potential Options
Denominations
will always disagree over some of the details and also how to tie together in
biblical balance these core truths, but it is my conviction these seven points
should be agreed upon by all, even if we still have some room for diversity in
the minor details of organization.
I
trust this discussion will assure us that how we organize the church does
matter, there is no room for top-heavy leadership where the congregation
becomes mere spectators, there is also no room for pure congregationalism, and
there truly is biblical warrant for how our congregation seeks to live as the
new society of new people under Jesus Christ. After all, he is in charge!
[2] You might want to know why I am emphasizing the
problems of pure congregationalism (democracy) rather than those of the hierarchical
forms of church organization that are “top heavy” and tend to exclude congregational
involvement and/or input. My response is
that in the Evangelical Free Church Of America we operate under congregationalism
and historically there has been a tendency of some people within the
congregational form of church government to advocate pure democracy. This is
exacerbated by a view of the United States government to which some hold that
it is a democracy and works pretty well, so why not have something similar in
the church? This commitment to pure
congregationalism can also be heightened if a person has experienced abusive leadership
in the past. Many, therefore think, “Isn’t democracy the way to keep leaders
accountable?” So, I want to answer those who tend to think in this way.
[3] The Bible makes it clear that “elder,” “pastor,” and “overseer”
all refer to the same office (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter
5:1-4). The New Testament allows for financial remuneration for elders (see 1
Cor. 9:8-14; 1 Tim. 5:17-18). However, elders can also be non-paid leaders (see
the pattern set by Paul, 1 Cor. 9:15). As such, the difference between the
spiritual leaders in the congregation does not lie between elders and pastors.
These terms refer to the same ministry. The difference lies between staff (paid
elders who can give more time) and non-staff elders (non-paid, who also have to
have another job and so have less time to give). Yet, there is not a difference
in importance, status, qualification, or calling. As such, distinctions between
staff and non-staff elders/pastors should be minimized and all seen as a team.
This fosters great accountability.
No comments:
Post a Comment