SGM-Mahaneygate: Big Shake-up in the Works for CJ/SGM

1000s abandon "Old Baldy" Mahaney.  Revenues have tanked.
SGM Communities (they themselves called them "Churches")
are planning to secede.  We predict about 20 communities
out of 95 will secede.  Another Sect. 
Two of the biggest, CLC and FFX, have withheld
their 10% tithe to SGM for a total of about $1.2 million/year.
"Mahaney, you're fired!"

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2012/7/23/sovereign-grace-churches-on-a-collision-course-with-sovereig.html

Sovereign Grace Churches on a Collision Course with Sovereign Grace Ministries Over Polity Differences

Monday, July 23, 2012 at 1:10PM

A slow motion train wreck is about to ensue over the next 3-5 months. Two opposing forces are heading down the track toward each other from opposite directions. That’s because half the churches in SGM are on a collision course with the SGM Board of Directors, Polity Committee and Leadership Team over polity.

The outcome of the polity debate has never been in question – only the consequences. C.J. and Dave Harvey handpicked the new Board and Polity Committee members. The Board in turn rubber stamped C.J., Dave, Jeff Purswell and Tommy Hill as the leadership team. Then C.J. was made the President and tagged the Chairman of the Polity Committee. Later Phil Sasser was added as Co-Chairman. What C.J. wants, he gets and what he gets, often causes destruction. This time will be no different.

I recently pointed out on my blog how Chairman Loftness and his Board have made C.J. the main thing. Immediately following that post, C.J. gave up his position as Co-Chairman of the Polity Committee with no explanation. Phil is now the sole Chairman. That is just like SGM - smoke and mirrors - change the appearance of things but not the substance. C.J.’s exit as Co-Chairman is a public relations stunt – nothing more.

Now to the topic at hand. There are three options on the table for how Sovereign Grace Ministries will be governed (or directed) in the future.

The Basic Polity Options

On July 10-11 eight churches presented their polity positions papers to the SGM Polity Committee.

1.    Covenant Life Church – Gaithersburg, MD

2.    Redeemer Church at Lake Nona – Orlando, FL

3.    Redeemer Church of Arlington - Arlington, VA

4.    Sovereign Grace Church - Aurora, IL

5.    Sovereign Grace Church – Fairfax, VA

6.    Sovereign Grace Church - Apex, NC

7.    Living Hope Church – Harrisburg, PA

8.    Redeeming Grace Church – Durham, NC

The first five churches made presentations essentially opposed to SGM polity. The last three churches made presentations essentially supportive of SGM polity. Three more churches make their presentations tomorrow.

The following three polity options have emerged with regard to how SGM may function moving forward.

Option 1: Apostolic ministry is upheld with authority over churches – SGM remains the same.

• “As we’ve [the interim Board of Directors] stated at the [2011 Pastors] conference and in our various polity meetings, we continue to affirm and celebrate our existence together as a family of churches. Although this letter speaks in terms of “the Board,” that is simply a functional term for the governing body of Sovereign Grace Ministries and not an abandonment of biblical principle. Based upon the precedent of the New Testament, SGM is an expression of extra-local ministry that is connected to local churches, emerging out of local churches, endorsed by local churches, and working with local churches, with the goal of planting churches and serving those churches as they grow toward maturity.” (Letter from SGM Board to Pastors, February 24, 2012)
• “An apostolic government is established solidly in the New Testament. It is not an occasional or incidental precedent, but one demonstrated in Acts and all of the epistles. What we see is that the New Testament knows nothing of a local church not tethered in some way to apostolic authority. Whether it is the direct involvement of the Twelve and Paul, or men sent out by them such as Barnabas, Timothy, and Titus, the local church is to be connected to some kind of apostolic oversight.” (Phil Sasser, Daniel Baker, Walt Briley, Jim Martin from Sovereign Grace Church, Apex, NC)
• Read Cotton Candy; Sovereign Grace’s Charismatic Decline and Ever Changing View of Apostles and C.J.’s Conundrum Regarding Apostles for additional insight.

Option 2: SGM becomes a para-church organization with no authority over churches – SGM changes.

• “A non-ecclesiastical, para-church network that exists for the purpose of equipping and strengthening local churches through the production of music, literature, conferences, training and general edification. In addition to this, we see SGM having a vital role in strategizing and supporting the work of church planting and the furthering of gospel mission.” (CLC Polity Position Paper)
• “We could not in good conscience endorse…any non-ecclesiastical body that claims authority and oversight of local churches.” (CLC Polity Position Paper)

Option 3: SGM becomes an ecclesiastical body comprised of elders from all member churches (i.e., a national/international presbytery is formed) – SGM is replaced.

• “An ecclesiastical body with actual and equal representation from each of its member churches, with a scope of authority limited to matters of doctrine, mission, and those matters which are mutually agreed to by its representative churches.” (CLC Polity Position Paper)
• “We could not in good conscience endorse…any type of ecclesiastical body that is not made up of member churches having authoritative representation in ecclesiastical decisions.” (CLC Polity Position Paper)

Three Basic Responses to Option One

The SGM Board, Polity Committee and Leadership Team have no choice but to advance Option 1 if the ministry is to continue. It doesn’t matter that C.J. has renounced this option in the past. He’ll just change his theology. No big deal. Furthermore, the first option is the only option with biblical support. The second and third options have no biblical backing. Options 2 and 3 may be adopted by a new association of churches as a diluted substitute for apostolic ministry but there is no biblical justification for them. They are the inventions of men - neither biblical nor evil.

Option 1 asserts that “apostolic ministry is upheld with authority over churches.” As I see it, there are three possible responses by the churches to this option.

1.    We believe in apostles and prophets and we also believe in C.J. We are staying.

2.    We believe in apostles and prophets but we no longer believe in C.J. We are leaving over ethics.

3.    We no longer believe in apostles and prophets. We are leaving over polity.

A lot of churches like Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax no longer believe in apostles and prophets. They are prepared to leave over polity. This is a sad theological development and I believe the wrong reason for leaving. Here are their position papers on the subject - Covenant Life Church Polity Position Paper and On the Governing of Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax. The second option is the right option. Churches should maintain their belief in apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11) and leave over ethics.

The Reformed Tradition

In this regard, I am sorely tempted to provide a lengthy response from Scripture to both Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax. Their arguments against the on-going role of apostles and prophets do not come from Scripture. They come from the Reformed tradition and the standard fair arguments of cessationists. That is why they quote books for support instead of Scripture in context. They simply don’t put forth arguments found in the Bible. Why? Because there are none! I mean no disrespect, but it is true. That's one of the reasons SGM has been "essentially" Reformed, not entirely Reformed.

The explanations provided for discontinuation are unsubstantiated. There is not a single passage in all the New Testament that teaches the cessation of apostles and prophets either with the death of the last apostle (e.g. John the apostle) or with the completion of the New Testament (i.e., Revelation). Some have tried to use Heb 2:3-4 for the former and 1 Cor 13:10 for that later but that will not do. Hebrews doesn’t teach cessationism and the “perfect” in Corinthians is not the canon of Scripture – it is a reference to the return of Christ. In addition, there is not one passage of Scripture that teaches it was required to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ in order to qualify as an apostle except for the original twelve apostles.

CLC and SGCF also claim there were no apostolic successors in the NT. Obviously there were no successors to The Twelve but there were host of other apostles like Paul (e.g. Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, James, Apollos, Epaphroditus, Andronicus, Junias, Titus, Luke, Jude, Sosthenes, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus, Aquilla, Epaphras, Demas, Crescens). At the time of his death, 20-30 other apostles were associated with Paul. These men worked with Paul and the vast majority outlived him due to his martyrdom. They succeeded him in apostolic ministry. To this they were appointed by the ascended Christ just like any pastor (Eph 4:7-11). Timothy was one of Paul’s successors. Of this there is no doubt. Read 1 & 2 Timothy. He was ordained and gifted to this end (cf. Acts 16:2-3; 1 Tim 1:18; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). These passages don’t deal with his ordination as an elder or bishop but are in relation to Timothy’s role as an apostle.

In spite of my disagreement, I have included selected quotes from their position papers because CLC and SGCF are drawing a line in the sand and many are following their example. Both strongly assert that apostles and prophets don’t exist and churches are autonomous and independently governed with no outside interference or oversight. I’m glad they are leaving but I wish it were over ethical concerns. In any case, a train wreck is in the works.

Apostles Have Ceased to Exist

The SGM Statement of Faith affirms the present day ministry of apostles and prophets. CLC and SGCF no longer do. That means they are in violation of the Membership Agreement they signed with SGM which requires adherence to this tenet.

“The ascended Christ has given gift ministries to the church (including apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) for the equipping of Christ’s body that it might mature and grow. Through the gift ministries all members of the Church are to be nurtured and equipped for the work of ministry.” (SGM Statement of Faith)

They write in opposition to the SGM position:

• “There is no ongoing apostolic office or hierarchical structure of governance above the local church.” (CLC)
• “Authority vested in an extra-local elder would have to assume apostolic power, which we deny exists since the passing of the original Apostles, outside of their teaching found in the canon of Holy Scripture.” (CLC)
• “Along with Reformed tradition, we affirm, ‘The apostolic foundation of the church and its government does not mean a continuing apostolate. For us it survives, not as an institution, but only in the apostolic word, which remains as the foundation of the church.’” (CLC)
• “While the apostles may have carried the day in the NT times, we believe that office is no longer functioning in churches today.” (SGCF)
• “It is our conviction that the office of the apostle ceased with the death of the original apostles.” (SGCF)
• “Such officers [apostles and prophets] and gifts related to new revelation have no successors since God completed His revelation at the conclusion of the Apostolic Age.” (SGCF)

No Apostolic Authority Exists Over Churches

According to CLC and SGCF, no one has any authority whatsoever over the churches that comprise SGM. Apostles and prophets have ceased; but so too Chairmen and Presidents. They’ve got to go also! On this polity point, a head on collision is coming because the official bylaws vest the following powers in John Loftness and C.J.

“The Chairman shall be a member of the Board of Directors. As the spiritual leader of the Corporation, the Chairman shall have principal responsibility to establish the Corporation’s vision, mission, and priorities.”

“The President shall serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. He shall have the general powers and duties of management usually vested in the office of the chief executive and president of a Corporation, and shall have such other rights, duties, and powers as are authorized by the Board of Directors.”

And let’s be clear, “the Corporation is organized as a convention or association of churches” according to the same bylaws. The only way CLC and SGCF stay is if John and C.J. dissolve their job descriptions and become deacons.

They write in opposition to the SGM position:

• “Local churches are governmentally independent.” (CLC)
• “There is no place for non-ecclesiastical, para-church, or quasi-church authority over the church of Jesus Christ.” (CLC)
• “We hold that, according to the New Testament, every local church, governed by its elders, is independent and a complete church. Any theory that demands a legal or binding authority over the local church and its eldership introduces an impermissible hierarchy into the church of Christ.” (CLC)
• “We could not in good conscience endorse…any non-ecclesiastical body that claims authority and oversight of local churches.” (CLC)
• “We find no biblical support for this third office [bishop] nor for an authority structure that exists outside and above the local church. In this sense we join our Congregationalist and Baptist brethren in believing that each local church is independent and autonomous in its governance.” (SGCF)

A Church Association Is Desirable

While dismissing apostles and prophets, Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax both see the value of relating to other churches. There is a new association of churches being discussed and planned as I write. A lot of pastors want this, are asking for this, and are actively pursuing this new cooperative arrangement. A major split is certain in Sovereign Grace Ministries. There will be an alternative to corruption and heavy handedness. For that I am grateful to God!

• “Local churches…should not deny the blessings and obligations of association with other churches. While one local church and its elders have no authority over another, local churches can partner with one another to support the expanse of the gospel and to support one another as needed.” (CLC)
• “It ought to be of utmost importance for believers and local churches to pursue unity and peace with one another, highlighting our spiritual unity in the gospel and where possible demonstrating our unity in practical ecclesiastical cooperation. Therefore, let us celebrate where there is doctrinally sound, gospel ecumenicity and collaboration.” (CLC)
• “This is not to say there is not a place for and usefulness to councils and ecclesiastical assemblies. On the contrary, such connection is clearly taught in Scripture (Acts 15) and, when agreed upon by mutual assent by individual congregations, is desirable to enhance the work of the church. Indeed, it encourages the unity of doctrine, discipline, and worship within various churches and furthers common interests such as the education of ministers and the work of mission and mercy.” (CLC)
• “Because there is biblical precedent for and obvious usefulness in collaborating together as churches for the purpose of doctrinal unity and mission, we affirm the permissibility of local churches formalizing their cooperative efforts. In so doing, it is important to specify the parity that exists between congregations in the structuring of the various assemblies, whether they be called associations, councils, or denominations.” (CLC)
• “We believe it is possible to affirm the independence of local churches, while also affirming the importance and value of connection. In this sense, the independence of local churches is not qualified. We also do not believe that this local church connectedness is rooted merely in some sort of ongoing apostolic ministry but in common submission to the authoritative, apostolic teaching of the New Testament, which binds true churches together.” (CLC)
• “Though we believe our church is to be governed independently and autonomously, this doesn’t mean we should exist without seeking connection and association with other churches.” (SGCF)
• “Paul himself provided much of the ‘glue’ that kept churches connected and while we do not expect his apostolic ministry to continue today, we do expect the Spirit to provide relational connections between churches. These connections may facilitate church planting, provide training for leaders, retreats for members, financial support for congregations in need, counsel for difficult situations, and so on.” (SGCF)
• “Joining together with like-minded congregations, especially those in our area is a vital means of fulfilling Gods call to us as a church. Whatever relationships, associations, and church connections we enter in to, we will preserve the self-governing autonomy of our local church.” (SGCF)

Moving Forward

I imagine C.J. and Phil felt their hearts sinking as they listened to the polity position papers realizing the writing was on the wall. A major split was inevitable. The SGM Polity Committee may adopt Phil’s strong position on apostolic government or Jeff Purswell’s weak position on semi-technical apostles – it doesn’t matter. A lot of churches have decided to leave. They have already dethroned C.J. in their theology and hearts. His rule is over for them.

All that remains is time and it may not take 3-5 months. The train wreck could occur sooner. In fact, some pastors are pushing for a quicker timeline. They want to separate from SGM now, form a new network of churches now, and get on with ministry unimpeded by the reproach that is Sovereign Grace Ministries. Hasten the day.

In my next post, I will return to what has always been the most important issue – the ethical demise of SGM. I’ll tackle what has been my central concern from the beginning. The loss of integrity. Members, pastors and churches may leave over polity but everyone should leave over ethics!

##

Please support my efforts with a financial gift. See A Timely Call to Help the Detwilers. Thank you.

##

Post Script

Stefan Dahl

Facebook

I no longer have a dog in this fight, but wanted to make the point that perhaps the reason CLC and others have chosen there position on not having outside "Apostolic" authority is because that is what they have been burned by.

Brent Detwiler

Facebook

I think you may be right. CLC and SGCF are probably more influenced by their bad experience with SGM then they’re aware. We tend to change our theology in reaction to bad experiences. The Arminian becomes a Calvinist and the Calvinist becomes an Arminian. The Pentecostal becomes a cessationist and the cessationist a Pentecostal. The Congregationalist an Anglican and the Anglican a Congregationalist. That’s why pure Bible study is so important. So I don’t agree with CLC/SGCF biblically but I do agree with them emotionally.

(SGM-Saga) Covenant Life Polity Position Paper

Is Mahaney getting his "wings" clipped? There is no room for Papacy or Prelacy, bad news for Autocrat Mahaney and his stacked Board.  Time will tell.

http://sgmrefuge.com/2012/07/13/covenant-life-church-polity-position-paper/

Covenant Life Church Polity Position Paper

Covenant Life Church Polity Position Paper

“…Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.” Eph 2:19-21

On The Order of Christ’s Church

Jesus Christ is the head of the church (Col 1:18, Eph 4:15) and exercises his authority through his Word (Eph 2:19, Acts 20:32, 2 Tim 3:16ff), wherein he establishes the parameters for the order of his church. In that divinely prescribed order, the local church is the primary structure, ruled by Christ through elders with the congregation.

Local churches are governmentally independent, yet should not deny the blessings and obligations of association with other churches. While one local church and its elders have no authority over another, local churches can partner with one another to support the expanse of the gospel and to support one another as needed. (Rom 15:22-39, 1 Cor 16).

There is no ongoing apostolic office or hierarchical structure of governance above the local church. The apostles held a unique, unrepeatable office, their qualifications including personal witness to the resurrected Christ and their commission by Christ to lay the foundation of the new covenant church. The term overseer, or bishop, refers to aspects of the elder’s role, not to an office that exists apart from or over local churches. Therefore, local churches are to be submitted to the Word of Christ and their own local elders.

Seven Principles of Church Polity

1. The principle of jure divino

The church is God’s creation and government is indispensible for the right administration of the church of Jesus Christ. Just as a temple calls for an architect, a field a sower (1 Cor 3), a flock a shepherd (John 10), a body a head (Col 1:18), a family a father (Eph 2:18-19), and a kingdom a king (Col 1:13), so also the church is unthinkable without an authority that sustains, guides, cares for, and protects it.[1] God has prescribed and provided for the government of his church through various means. In the past, God providedprophets, judges, priests, and kings, and in more recent times, God has provided apostles, pastors, and teachers who stand upon the written Word (Eph 4:11-16).

The principle of jure divino establishes that the government of the church is instituted by God for his glory. God alone is able to define the purpose, nature, and form of government for his church. The nature and details of church government are not left for man to determine independently of divine revelation. Just like marriage, church polity is not the product of human ingenuity; Paul’s analogy of the two in Ephesians 5 indicates as much. This does not mean there is not a certain bandwidth of liberty on how this government may be exercised or on the variant details of the attending circumstances of its constitution, but, just as the church belongs to Christ, so also must its government be regulated by His Word.
Jesus Christ alone is the king and head of the church (Joh 10:16). The government rests upon his shoulders (Isa 9:6). Jesus is not only the founding head of the church, having redeemed her by His blood, but He also is the presiding head, ruling and reigning over the church today (Col 1:18). In this role, King Jesus continues to build His church, even unto the ends of the earth (Matt 16:18). For this purpose, he has distributed gifts to men and established offices, ordinances, and oracles through which his government can be administered (Eph 4:11-12). These doctrines and practices are either expressly set down in Scripture or adduced by good and necessary consequence therein.[2] To this, King Jesus commands that nothing be added and that nothing be taken away (Mat 5:18-19). While Scripture itself is not a book of church order, it does contain the principles of church government that cannot be disregarded without injury to the spiritual life.[3]

2. The principle of organic union

The church is one: one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father over the church (Eph 4:4-6). The most common picture used in Scripture to illustrate the church’s union is that of a body. As one body, each individual member and each individual local congregation is organically connected to make up the entire body. This union transcends denominations, nations, and ages. Yet, the inviolability and distinctiveness of the individual person and congregation is not transgressed within this organic union (1 Cor 12:12-27),
In this organic union, the head of the body is only and always Christ. He is the head of the church universal as well as local, visible as well as invisible. As an organic body, we have fellowship with all true churches and believers, and we ought to pursue unity accordingly. It ought to be of utmost importance for believers and local churches to pursue unity and peace with one another, highlighting our spiritual unity in the gospel and where possible demonstrating our unity in practical ecclesiastical cooperation. Therefore, let us celebrate where there is doctrinally sound, gospel ecumenicity and collaboration. Let us grieve and work against sectarianism and unnecessary schism (Eph 4:15-16, 1 Cor 1:10).
Organic union is also realized in the unity that exists between all the individual members of the body. In the body of the church, there are various parts with various functions, but all fundamentally are still members of the body and not separable into distinct classes or levels of spirituality. The distinction between “clergy” and “laity” that underlies a separation between members and ministers is nowhere taught in the New Testament and is rejected by the organization of the first-century church.[4] We ought to reject any spiritual or functional division of the body, whether established upon a “clericalization” of some special group or upon a “charismatization”[5] wherein certain individuals are viewed and function independently of and without accountability from the rest of the body (1 Cor 12:12-13, 1 Pet 2:9).

3. The principle of authority in actu primo and in actu secundo

Authority in the church can properly be said to be in actu primo (actual or real authority) to the whole church itself and in actu secundo (functional or exercise of authority) to those especially called, namely the elders.[6] Church power belongs essentially to the whole body of believers, whether officers or not.[7] To state it concisely, the power of the church is vested by God to the body and then exercised through its officers. The primary depository or subject of church power is not in the office-bearers exclusively, nor the whole body of believers exclusively, but both working together as an organic whole.[8] This principle rules out strict congregationalism as well as strict prelacy (Mat 18, Gal 3).
The people of God in a local church possess the combined powers, gifts, and calling of a church and by affirmation of elders actually exercises them. Any theory which speaks of the appointment of rulers except by the free acts of the local church is in error.[9] In this biblical model of authority, Christ alone, as head of the church, prescribes the need for rulers and graciously provides elders to rule and oversee His church. But it is the local church, working with its leaders, that affirms its officers. These elders are to be called by God (Eph 4:11), qualified according to Scripture (1 Tim 3:1-7), and examined and installed by the church.

To the elders has been given the stewardship of shepherding the flock of God, as under shepherds of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ. Elders are to exercise this God-given authority in the church as servants, not lording it over the sheep (Mar 10:42-45). Such authority is ministerial, spiritual, and declarative. As clearly revealed by the Chief Shepherd, there can be no lording, domination, or pre-eminence of power in the church.

Indeed, we see from Scripture that it is the task of the elder that is noble, not the office itself (1 Tim 3:1).

Furthermore, according to the aforementioned principle of church authority, there can be no in actu tertio, that is to say, another authority in the church beyond what Christ himself prescribes and provides. Any other claimed authority would be foreign to the teaching of Scripture and therefore illegitimate. Any other claimed authority established by means other than full participation of the people is also illegitimate. As stated above, authority in the church comes from within the church and is part of the organic unity of the church. This is not to say that a church whose leadership has been wrongly established or authority misunderstood is not a church or teaching a false gospel, but that such a church is immature in its polity and inevitably will run afoul of its deficiency. Regardless, there is no place for non-ecclesiastical, para-church, or quasi-church authority over the church of Jesus Christ.

4. The principle of local authority

We hold that, according to the New Testament, every local church, governed by its elders, is independent and a complete church. Any theory that demands a legal or binding authority over the local church and its eldership introduces an impermissible hierarchy into the church of Christ.[10] This is not to say there is not a place for and usefulness to councils and ecclesiastical assemblies. On the contrary, such connection is clearly taught in Scripture (Acts 15) and, when agreed upon by mutual assent by individual congregations, is desirable to enhance the work of the church. Indeed, it encourages the unity of doctrine, discipline, and worship within various churches and furthers common interests such as the education of ministers and the work of mission and mercy.
However, we see no ongoing scriptural grounds for authority to be located in an extra-local eldership. While local congregations can join together by mutual assent to further gospel ministry, no eldership from one church can exercise authority over another. And no individual man can claim authority over a congregation of which he is not an elder. This is even more so the case if said “elder” has no congregation at all, but plays the part of an administrator or asserts self-acclaimed authority without the affirmation of the people. Such authority does not have a place in a biblically derived polity, but rather is what we see in the Papal system of prelacy. In this system, a bishop is established but not an elder in the biblical sense. Without a particular, local congregation, he is like a father who has no children, a husband without a wife, a shepherd without any sheep – all of which contain a contradiction. It is inconsistent with the nature and purpose of the pastoral office, which is inextricably intertwined with a particular congregation.[11] Authority vested in an extra-local elder would have to assume apostolic power, which we deny exists since the passing of the original Apostles, outside of their teaching found in the canon of Holy Scripture. To incorporate extra-local eldership into church polity leaves a church vulnerable to governance that is arbitrary, authoritarian, and ignorant of local circumstances.[12]
5. The principle of plurality
We affirm the essential New Testament principle of church polity that authority in the church must be exercised within the framework of a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23, 20:17, Phi 1:1). Scripture’s use of “elders,” whenever it appears in the context of church leaders, is always set in the plural. The authority vested in the eldership rests in the whole and not upon any individual. No one elder can presume to claim greater authority or assume greater privilege than another elder. It follows from this that there can be no investing of authority to an individual under the pretense that he represents the plurality of a body of elders or out of expedience in the effort to further mission. This would essentially give extra-biblical authority to a man, which we reject, as it contradicts the principle of plurality and the teaching of Scripture in regards to post-apostolic church polity. However, within the plurality of elders we have no scruple with the sub-principle of primus inter pares, which allows for a “first among equals” functionality bestowed upon the lead or senior elder amongst the plurality of elders.
This biblical model of church governance serves to provide a multitude of counselors, protects the church from individual caprice and weakness, preserves the greater unity of the body, and permits the shared load of responsibility in shepherding the church of God (Pro 15:22).
6. The principle of parity within cooperation
Just as there is essential equality between all the individual members of an elder board, there is also similar parity between every board in relation to any other board of elders. This is true regardless of a congregation’s size, history, or prominence. No church can arrogate to itself pre-eminence of authority on account of its stature over other churches that have a duly constituted board of elders. Each and every board has equal authority over its own jurisdiction (its membership).
Because there is biblical precedent for and obvious usefulness in collaborating together as churches for the purpose of doctrinal unity and mission, we affirm the permissibility of local churches formalizing their cooperative efforts. In so doing, it is important to specify the parity that exists between congregations in the structuring of the various assemblies, whether they be called associations, councils, or denominations (Acts 15).
7. The principle of representation
We affirm, consistent with the example revealed in Scripture and practiced by the early as well as the Reformation church, the principle of representation for every governing church body, whether local or cooperative. Having been endued with the Holy Spirit and adopted as sons of God with all the privileges therein, it is the right of every member of the household of God to be able to participate in the governance of the church by affirming who will oversee the church and to whom they will submit in the fear of the Lord. The right of the people to take part in the government is both reasonable and biblical (Acts 14:23, Eph 2:19, 1 Tim 3:1-7).
This same privilege is the right of every local congregation in regards to representative assemblies. All broader assemblies ought to be formed by representatives of the local elderships.[13] This principle of representation is the bond of union and the medium of common action.[14] It follows that broader assemblies can only legitimately be called together and exist at the will and calling of local elderships. Authority between assemblies is organic and interwoven and cannot be independent of the other.
We can surmise both from principle as well as from experience that where there exists an omission of representation in government, the unity, trust, and accountability that the association is built upon is inevitably undermined. Such a system is a temptation to those who rule and injurious to those who are ruled. This is not to say that representative government is a polity panacea, for where sinners govern and are governed, there will be no shortage of error and controversy. But to fail to exercise this principle will uniquely hinder the work of furthering the gospel, as it fails to implement all of the other principles of church polity stated above.

Polity in Sovereign Grace Ministries
Given the occasion of this paper, we would like to specifically address the issues of apostolic ministry and the independence of local churches, along with our perspective on the polity of SGM going forward.
1. Apostolic Ministry
Along with Reformed tradition, we affirm, “The apostolic foundation of the church and its government does not mean a continuing apostolate. For us it survives, not as an institution, but only in the apostolic word, which remains as the foundation of the church” (Eph 2:20, Acts 20:32).[15] We see that apostolic authority functions in the New Testament, along with local elders (Acts 15, 20) and involving local congregations (Acts 6, 14). However, the apostles play a unique redemptive-historical role in proclaiming the new covenant. The apostles never replicate themselves in office, nor do they call anyone else to do so, but in their church-planting ministry they appoint men to an office different from their own – eldership. The New Testament gives us no qualifications for apostles as it does for elders. The qualifications for apostleship we can infer are unrepeatable, including personal witness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 2, 1 Cor 9:1, 1 Pet 5:1).
Men such as Timothy and Titus do seem to express some authority in local churches (1 Tim 1:3, Tit 1:5). But their authority is derived, an extension of the ministry of apostles (Acts 19:22), with an emphasis on teaching the Word and modeling godly conduct as exhibited by the apostles (1 Cor 4:17, 2 Tim 3). In that role they continue to ordain men to offices distinct from their own (eldership), as the apostles had. These men are never referred to in the New Testament as apostles, but as helpers (Acts 19:22), children (Tit 1:4, 1 Tim 1:2), and evangelists (2 Tim 4:5). They never operate independently; their ministry is largely about proclaiming and modeling what they learned from Paul (1 Cor 4:17, 2 Tim 2:2). They are never called to replicate apostolic office but are sent with Paul’s commendation and are charged to appoint elders in local churches who will preach the Word. In the final canonical letters from both Paul and Peter, each seemingly self-aware of their impending death, neither gives instruction for the appointment of apostles. Rather, both explicitly hold up the authority of the Word (2 Tim 3:14ff, 2 Pet 1:19ff, 3:2, 15-18; see also Acts 20:32). Churches are submitted to the authority of Christ’s Word, given by the apostles, and led by local elders who faithfully teach it. We are simply never told in the New Testament to appoint men to an apostolic office, and we have no pattern in the New Testament in which apostles or churches appoint apostles. We are told to appoint elders who preach the apostolic Word, and we see this practice demonstrated in the New Testament itself.
2. Autonomous Local Churches
We believe it is possible to affirm the independence of local churches, while also affirming the importance and value of connection. In this sense, the independence of local churches is not qualified. We also do not believe that this local church connectedness is rooted merely in some sort of ongoing apostolic ministry but in common submission to the authoritative, apostolic teaching of the New Testament, which binds true churches together. This independence has nothing to do with American democracy. These views were put forward by a number of historical theologians and pastors who had no concept of modern American democracy. This has to do with where Scripture places authority in the church. As a father is the head of his household and not the head of another, so local elders have authority for their own churches and not other congregations. And just as a godly man will consider the interests of other families, not merely his own, a faithful local church will work with and for the good of other local churches. We simply do not see where Scripture ever calls or commends one local church to submit itself to the elders of another local church. We believe it is permissible and appropriate for associations of churches to determine what kind of churches will make up the association, but we do not believe Scripture allows a local church eldership to cede its authority to the elders of another congregation or to any man or group of men who function apart from the authority of local churches.
3. Moving Forward
In light of the principles laid out above, it is our perspective that SGM must define itself either as:
A. A non-ecclesiastical, para-church network that exists for the purpose of equipping and strengthening local churches through the production of music, literature, conferences, training and general edification. In addition to this, we see SGM having a vital role in strategizing and supporting the work of church planting and the furthering of gospel mission. Or:
B. An ecclesiastical body with actual and equal representation from each of its member churches, with a scope of authority limited to matters of doctrine, mission, and those matters which are mutually agreed to by its representative churches.
We do not believe there are any other biblically permissible options, based on our understanding of Scripture as outlined above.

We could not in good conscience endorse:
A. Any type of ecclesiastical body that is not made up of member churches having authoritative representation in ecclesiastical decisions.
B. Any non-ecclesiastical body that claims authority and oversight of local churches.

____________________________________
[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 329.
[2] PCA, Preface to the Book of Church Order, p. 88.
[3] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 370.
[4] Ibid., p. 358.
[5] Contra Montanism.
[6] John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, vol. 16, p. 31.
[7] James Bannerman, Paradigms in Polity, p. 326.
[8] Ibid., p. 327.
[9] J.H. Thornwell, Collected Writings, vol. 4, p. 139.
[10] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 433.
[11] John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, vol. 16, p. 94.
[12] This principle of local authority is not particularly controversial, even in our family of churches. In Jeff Purswell’s outline on polity handed out at the 2010 Together for the Gospel conference, we read, “We believe the authority Paul exercised over the churches he planted was unique…Beyond Paul’s own authority, the NT indicates no formal, ecclesiastical hierarchy to which churches were in submission. The picture seems to be that elders were given by God to care for their own churches.”
[13] We agree with John Owen: “…synods are to be composed and consist of such persons as are chosen and delegated by those churches respectively who do act and exert their communion in such assemblies.” (Op. cit., p. 202) See also Bavinck, Op. cit., p. 434, point 7.
[14] J.H. Thornwell, Collected Writings, vol. 4,p.137.
[15] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 327.