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).
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment