Elders, Quality, Dignity and Reputation

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/02/a-question-of-character-7.php

 

In our final installment of this series, we will look at Paul's final qualification for us to think about when selecting elders. The Apostle's last instruction has to do not with what the church thinks of the man, but what those outside the church think of the man.

Why would it be important for those outside to think well of a Gospel minister or elder? After all, more than any other profession perhaps, ministers are derided, looked down upon, and generally disdained by those who are not Christians. Much of this simply comes because those outside hate the Lord of the Gospel the man preaches. So is Paul commanding the impossible here?

I don't think so. In fact, this qualification in verse 7 may be one of the most important. If we think about what Paul is saying, it makes perfect sense. As Paul is giving general instructions to Timothy here, I think the general principle is this: a minister's life ought to be exemplary not only to those inside the church but those looking in, so to speak. The argument, again, is simple: if those without cannot see Christ in an office-bearer's life, then he is not fit to lead those within the household of God.

One thing to note off the bat: if the man meets the prior qualifications, this last one will come naturally. If he is temperate, self-controlled, not greedy, a good household manager and a mature and maturing Christian, he will immediately stand out from the world. So, I think that is one reason why Paul places this stipulation last: it naturally follows from what comes before. But let us not make the mistake that we need to lessen our attention for that reason. We are a dull people, in need of constant reminders.

It is tautological to say that this qualification that the Apostle lays down here remains unmet by so many today. So large is their number, it would be a waste of time to chronicle here the ministers in just the past few years who have incurred the wrath of those outside the church. From scandals involving young men and drugs, to greed that would make an Enron executive blush, the church in our land is beset by wolves in sheep's clothing who have devoured their own flocks, while staining the church's reputation on a national and even international stage.

But what about closer to home? As ministers and elders, what do our neighbors think of us? Our other family members? Our friends? Do we adorn our profession of the Gospel or do we bring Christ into ill repute by our ways? I know firsthand some of my own blunders in these areas. My skin crawls even now when I think about some of my public conduct that brought shame upon Christ's glorious name. Have you repented, pastor, of making those outside think less of Christ by your words, actions, or attitudes?

Interestingly, as with the preceding verse, Paul attaches a warning here, perhaps two. The first warning tells us that a man who does not have a good reputation with those outside will fall into disgrace. Haven't all of us known an elder who is well known as a cheat at the workplace, a poor husband and father, unspiritual, and undiscerning? What do unbelievers think of such a one? They mock him. They see him as one more weapon in an already overstocked arsenal with which to assault Christ's church.

The second warning is similar to the warning of verse 6. The man who does not have holy and righteous character, leading to a good reputation with those outside, not only falls into disgrace but the devil's snare. We must never forget that Satan rejoices when unbelievers hold the leaders of Christ's church in contempt. If he can bring down the generals, what will become of the foot soldiers?

The importance of the Apostle's command was brought home to me early in my Christian life. I was in my early 20's and was at a Christian men's conference with some friends from church. I remember one of the leaders relaying a story about when he was at the same men's conference a few years earlier. My friend asked the clerk at the desk of the hotel where most of the attendees were staying if the clerk would like a free pass to the conference. The clerk replied that he would not, in fact, like a free pass. When my friend asked why, the clerk replied that there were more pornographic movies ordered on the weekend of this men's conference than at any time previous. This clerk was disgusted by such behavior and rightly so. He simply couldn't take the conference seriously. The men who ordered pornography fell into disgrace, into the snare of the devil.

This story illustrates what must be the case for all Christians, but especially elders: we must be those who are the same when people are watching as when they are not watching. Most importantly, we must never forget we live always before the face of our God, before whom "no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Heb 4:13). What a sobering thought!

A couple of applications come to mind. First, if you are a minister or elder, do you keep careful watch over your conduct at work, in the neighborhood, at the grocery store? Is your conduct above reproach (1 Tim 3:2)? If one of your church members should come by your workplace, would your conduct there match what you are like on the Lord's Day or Session meetings?

Second, there is extraordinarily good news. Are you discouraged by the above? If you've read this series and you are a minister or elder, I am sure you are like me - overwhelmed and terrified. But take heart. The amazing thing is that we do this ministry in union with the resurrected Christ, as Philip Ryken once said. We are those who have been crucified with him and resurrected with him, to walk in newness of life (cf. Romans 6:4).

If we walk daily with Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit will produce his fruit in us. We will begin to be those who are self-controlled, temperate, and who have a good reputation with those without. If I could put it this way, most of what the Apostle commands us here in 1 Timothy 3 will be, in a word, a byproduct of the Spirit's ministry in us.

If we are office-bearers, we must be those who know Jesus Christ intimately. We should know his tender mercy, his lovingkindness, his amazing grace, and his care for us. As we know this more and more, these character qualities will simply burst forth in resurrection glory - a foretaste of the age to come right now. What a blessing this will be to our churches when this happens!

So let us strive after holiness. But let us not strive after these things simply to be good officers. Rather, let us simply be exemplary Christians because we've been so close to our Savior that that which Paul commands flows naturally. Let us be those whom others can look up to without so much of a trace of postmodern cynicism, so typical of those outside the covenant of grace when they behold church leaders. And let us earnestly pray with Augustine: "Oh Lord, command what you will and give what you command."

Westminster Confession of Faith, 31.5: Civil and Ecclesiastical Government

WCF 31.5

December 22, 2011

Chapter 31: Of Synods and Councils

5. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

Robert Shaw says this:

While our Confession denounces any Erastian interference of the civil magistrate in matters purely spiritual and Ecclesiastical, it no less explicitly disavows all Popish claims, on the part of the synods and councils of the Church, to intermeddle with civil affairs, unless by way of petition, in extraordinary cases, or by ray of advice, when required by the civil magistrate. Our Reformers appear to have clearly perceived the proper limits of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and to have been very careful that they should be strictly observed. "The power and policy ecclesiastical," say they, "is different and distinct in its own nature from that power and policy which is called civil power, and appertainseth to the civil government of the commonwealth; albeit they be both of God, and tend to one end, if they be rightly used, viz., to advance the glory of God, and to have godly and good subjects." "Diligence should be taken, chiefly by the moderator, that only ecclesiastical things be handled in the Assemblies, and that there be no meddling with anything pertaining to the civil jurisdiction." Church and State may co-operate in the advancement of objects common to both; but each of them must be careful to act within its own proper sphere-- the one never intermeddling with the affairs which properly belong to the province of the other.

Reduction, Presbyterianizing, and Curtailment of Bishops

http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/history/ussher/iss_history_ussher_episcopacy.asp

The Reduction of Episcopacy
by James Ussher

The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the form of Synodical Government Received in the Ancient Church: Proposed as an Expedient for the compromising of the now Differences, and the preventing of those Troubles that may arise about the matter of Church Government. 1656

Episcopal and Presbyteral Government conjoined.

By Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged (1) to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realm hath received the same; and that they might the better understand what the Lord had commanded therein (2), the Exhortation of S. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination; Take heed unto your selves, and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to Rule (3) the Congregation of God, which he hath purchased with his blood.

Of the many Elders, who in common thus ruled the Church of Ephesus, there was on President; Whom our Saviour in his Epistle to that Church in a peculiar manner styles the Angel of the Church of Ephesus (Rev 2.1); and Ignatius, in another Epistle written about twelve years after unto the same Church, called the Bishop thereof, betwixt which Bishop and the Presbytery of that Church, what an harmonious consent there was in the ordering of the Church government, the same Ignatius doth fully there declare, by the Presbytery with St. Paul (1 Tim 4.14) understanding the Company of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders, who then had a hand not only in the deliverance of the Doctrine and Sacraments, but also in the administration of the Discipline of Christ, for further proof whereof, we have that known testimony of Tertullian in his Apology for Christians. (4)

In the Church are used exhortations, chastisements and divine censure. For judgement is given with great advice as among those who are certain that they are in the sight of God; and it is the chiefest foreshowing of the judgement which is to come, if any man have so offended that he be banished from the Communion of Prayer, and of the Assembly, and of all holy fellowship. The Presidents that bear rule therein are certain approved Elders, who have obtained this honour, not by reward, but by good report; were no other (as he himself elsewhere intimates) but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist (5). For with the Bishop who was the chief President (and therefore styled by the same Tertullian in another place (6) Summus Sacerdos for distinction sake) the rest of the Dispensers of the Word and Sacraments joined in the common government of the Church; and therefore, where in matters of Ecclesiastical judicature Cornelius Bishop of Rome used the received form of gathering together the Presbytery (7); of what persons did consist, Cyprian, sufficiently declares, when he wishes him to read his letters (8) to the flourishing Clergy which there did preside or rule with him, the presence of the Clergy being thought to be so requisite in matters of Episcopal audience that in the fourth Council of Carthage, it was concluded, that the Bishop might hear no man’s cause without the presence of his Clergy, and that otherwise the Bishops sentence should be void, unless it were confirmed by the presence of the Clergy, which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of Egbert, who was Archbishop of York in the Saxons times, and afterwards into the Body of the Canon Law itself.

True it is, that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial government has been long disused, yet seeing it still professes, that every Pastor has a right to rule the Church (from when the name of Rector also was given at first unto him) and to administer the Discipline of Christ, as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the restraint of the exercise of that right proceeds only from the custom now received in this Realm, no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this Hindrance may be well removed: And how easily his ancient form of government by the united Suffrages of the Clergy might be revived again, and with what little show of alteration, the Synodical conventions of the Pastors of every Parish might be accorded with the presidency of the Bishops of each Diocese and Province; the impartial Reader may quickly perceive by the perusal of the ensuing Propositions.

1. In every parish the Rector or Incumbent Pastor together with the Churchwardens and Sidesmen may every week take notice of such as live scandalously in that Congregation, who are to receive such several admonitions and reproofs, as the quality of their offence shall deserve; and if by this means they cannot be reclaimed, they ay be presented unto the next monthly Synod; and in the mean time debarred by the Pastor from access to the Lord’s Table.

2. Whereas by a Statute in the 26 year of King Henry the eight (revived in the first of Queen Elizabeth) Suffragans are appointed to be erected in twenty six places of this Kingdom, the number of them might very well be conformed unto the number of the several rural Deaneries into which every Diocese is subdivided; which being done, the Suffragan (supplying the place of those who in the ancient Church were called Chorepiscopi) might every month assemble a Synod of all the Rectors, or Incumbent Pastors within the Precinct, and according to the Major part of their votes conclude all matters that should be brought into debate before them.

To this Synod the Rector and Churchwardens might present such impenitent persons, as by admonition and suspension from the Sacrament, would not be reformed; who if they should still remain contumacious and incorrigible, the sentence of Excommunication might be decreed against them by the Synod, and accordingly be executed in the Parish where they lived.

Hitherto also all things that concerned the Parochial Ministers might be referred, whether they did touch doctrine or their conversation; as also the censure of all new Opinions, Heresies, or Schisms, which did arise within that Circuit; with liberty of Appeal, if need so require, unto the Diocesan Synod.

3. The Diocesan Synod might be held once or twice in the year, as it should be thought most convenient: Therein all the Suffragans and the rest of the Rectors or Incumbent Pastors (or a certain select number) of every Deanery within that Diocese might meet, with whose consent, or the Major part of them, all things might be concluded by the Bishop or Superintendent (call him whither you will) or in his absence by one of the Suffragans whom he shall depute in his stead to be Moderator of that Assembly. here all matters of greater moment might be taken into consideration, and the Orders of the Monthly Synods revised, and (if need be) reformed: And if here also any matters of difficultly could not receive a full determination; it might be referred to the next Provincial or National Synod.

4. The Provincial Synod might consist of all the Bishops and Suffragans, and such other Clergy as should be elected out of every Diocese within the Province; The Primate of either Province might be Moderator of this meeting (or in his room, some one of the Bishops appointed by him) and all matters be ordered therein by common consent as in the former Assembly.

This Synod might be held every third year, and in the Parliament do then sit (according to the Act for A Triennial Parliament) both the Primates and Provincial Synods of the Land might join together, and make us a National Counsel: Wherein all appeals from inferior Synods might be received, all their Acts examined, and all Ecclesiastical constitutions which concern the state of the Church of the whole Nation established.

END.

The Form of Government here proposed, is not in any point repugnant to Scripture; and that the Suffragans mentioned in the Second Proposition, may lawfully use the power both of jurisdiction and Ordination, according to the Word of God, and the Practice of the ancient Church.

ENDNOTES

(Not all the endnotes have been copied because of the difficulty of reading them in the manuscript available. Whereas Ussher gave most of the notes in Latin the Engish version of Schaff has been used here.)

The form of Ordaining Ministers

Ibid. ex Acts 20.17,28

poimainein – so taken in Matt 2.6 and Rev 12.5 & 19.15

“In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character.” Tertullian : Apology Chapter 39.

“We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist” Tertullian : The Chaplet or De Corona, Chapter 3

Tertullian : On Baptism, Chapter 17

“The whole of this transaction therefore being brought before me, I decided that the presbytery should be brought together; (for there were present five bishops, who were also present today;) so that by well-grounded counsel it might be determined with the consent of all what ought to be observed in respect of their persons.” The Epistles of Cyprian : Epistle 45 Cornelius to Cyprian

The Epistles of Cyprian : Epistle 53 to Cornelius

Christianity Today, Church Growth, SGM, Mahaney, Piper

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/julyweb-only/mostriskyprofession.html?start=1

 

The Most Risky Profession

Why you need to pray desperately for your pastor.

Mark Galli

It's refreshing news to hear of pastors taking a leave of absence not over sexual or financial misconduct, but over pride. Such was the case with John Piper last year, and this week with C. J. Mahaney. Mahaney has been president of the church planting network Sovereign Grace Ministries, which according to its website now includes "about 95 churches," mostly on the East Coast. He is the founder of the megachurch Covenant Life Church, which he handed over to Joshua Harris after pastoring there for 27 years. He is also one of the leaders of the Together for the Gospel Conferences, and one of the most popular speakers in the neo-Reformed circuit.

The story behind his leave of absence is still unraveling. But he has publicly acknowledged that he has succumbed to "various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, and hypocrisy."

It's an interesting list of sins—ones that pastors all over America commit week in and week out. This is not to excuse Mahaney or to take such sins lightly. It is to suggest that the state of the modern American pastorate has been shaped so that these sins—especially pride and hypocrisy—are impossible to escape. For this reason, our pastors need not our condemnation, but our prayers. They are in a profession that is about as morally risky as they come.

Bigger and Better

The modern American church is very much a product of its culture—we're an optimistic, world-reforming, busy, and ambitious lot, we Americans. In business, that means creating a better widget, and lots of them, and thus growing larger and larger corporations. In religion, that means helping more souls, and along the way, building bigger and better churches. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled in the 1830s how American Christians seemed so blasé about doctrine compared to their enthusiasm for good works. Religious busyness will be with us always, it seems.

Translate that into church life, and we find that American churches exalt and isolate their leaders almost by design. Our ambitious churches lust after size—American churches don't feel good about themselves unless they are growing. We justify church growth with spiritual language—concern for the lost and so forth. But much of the time, it's American institutional self-esteem that is on the line. This is an audacious and unprovable statement, I grant, but given human nature (the way motives become terribly mixed in that desperately wicked human heart) and personal experience, I will stick to it.

With this addiction to growth comes a host of behavioral tics, such as a fascination with numbers. The larger the church, the more those who attend become stats, "attenders" to be counted and measured against previous weeks. Pastoral leaders are judged mostly on their ability to enlarge their ministries. It's not long before we have to rely on "systems" to track and follow newcomers. It is the rare church now that can depend on members naturally noticing newcomers, or on their reaching out to them with simple hospitality. That has become the job of a committee, which is overseen by a staff member. With increasing size comes an increasing temptation to confuse evangelism with marketing, the remarkably efficient and effective if impersonal science of getting people in the doors.

With the longing for size comes a commitment to efficiency. No longer is it a good use of the head pastor's time to visit the sick or give spiritual counsel to individuals. Better for him to make use of his "gift mix," which usually has little to do with the word pastor—or shepherd, the biblical word for this position. Instead, he has been hired for his ability to manage the workings of large and complex institutions. The bigger the church, the less he works with common members and mostly with staff and the church board. To successfully manage a large church, one must be on top of all the details of that institution. This doesn't necessarily mean directly micromanaging things, but it certainly means to do so indirectly. The large church pastor may not personally tell the nursery volunteers to repaint the 2–3 year-old room, but when he notices a spot of peeling paint as he passes by, the pastor will tell someone who will tell someone, and it will get done in short order.

This is not because the senior pastor is a control freak—or if he is, the church wants him to be. Churches on their way up the growth curve like to know that someone is in charge, that someone is attending to the details, that someone is getting things done. That's why they've hired this dynamic, forward looking, administratively savvy leader. They enjoy being a part of a humming, efficient organization. It reminds them of the other humming, efficient organizations our culture admires, from Google to Apple to Disneyland. It makes them proud to be a part of such a church. That the pastor has to take a heavy hand now and then—sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly—is a small price to pay.

(I use the masculine pronoun to talk about pastors precisely because the vast majority are males, and men are particularly vulnerable to these realities. I also speak autobiographically here, having been a pastor for ten years.)

What makes the pastor's job even more spiritually vulnerable is the expectation that he also be the cathartic head of the church—someone with whom members can identify and live through vicariously. Someone who articulates their fears and hopes, someone to whom they can relate—at a distance. This is key, because the pastor has time to relate to very, very few members. Thus it is all the more important that he be able to communicate in public settings the personable, humble, vulnerable, and likable human being he is.

Thus, preaching in the modern church has devolved into the pastor telling stories from his own life. The sermon is still grounded in some biblical text, and there is an attempt to articulate what that text means today. But more and more, pastors begin their sermons and illustrate their points repeatedly from their own lives. Next time you listen to your pastor, count the number of illustrations that come from his life, and you'll see what I mean. The idea is to show how this biblical truth meets daily life, and that the pastor has a daily life. All well and good. But when personal illustrations become as ubiquitous as they have, and when they are crafted with pathos and humor as they so often are, they naturally become the emotional cornerstone of the sermon. The pastor's life, and not the biblical teaching, is what becomes memorable week after week.

Again, this is not because the pastor is egotistical. It's because, again, we demand this of our preachers. Preachers who don't reveal their personal lives are considered, well, impersonal and aloof. Share a couple of cute stories about your family, or a time in college when you acted less than Christian, and people will come up to you weeks and months later to thank you for your "wonderful, vulnerable sermons." Preachers are not dummies, and they want approval like everyone else. You soon learn that if you want those affirmative comments—and if you want people to listen to you!—you need to include a few personal and, if possible, humorous stories in your sermon.

The inadvertent effect of all this is that most pastors have become heads of personality cults. Churches become identified more with the pastor—this is Such-and-Such's church—than with anything larger. When that pastor leaves, or is forced to leave, it's devastating. It feels a like a divorce, or a death in the family, so symbiotic is today's relationship between pastor and people.

No wonder pastors complain about how lonely and isolated they feel. The success and health of a very demanding institution have been put squarely on their shoulders. They love the adrenaline rush of success—who doesn't? But they also live in dread that they may fail. Wise pastors recognize that unique temptations will assault them, and some set up accountability structures to guard their moral and spiritual lives. They try to have people around them who can speak truth to their power. But in reality, since this is an accountability structure that they have set up and whose membership they determine, in the end it can only have limited effectiveness.

And so we have a system in which pride and hypocrisy are inevitable. The situation for the pastor is impossible. He retains his biblical vision, but the system he finds himself in makes him waver between humility and arrogance, hope and cynicism, patience and anger, love and hate. The pastor has to increasingly downplay these tensions or any serious shortcomings, moral or administrative, to play the part that is expected of him. He must learn to doubt his moral instincts, so he starts believing that efficiently running a large, bureaucratic institution is "ministry" or "service" rather than what it often is: mostly managing and controlling people. He and his congregation justify his heavy-handed leadership and his lack of time for individuals—the very antithesis of his title, pastor or shepherd. His sermons are increasingly peppered with himself as much as the gospel, and even his self-deprecating humor turns against him. Now people praise him for his humility, which only goes to his head, as it does for any human being.

The morally serious pastor will be aware of much of this—even if he can't admit it to anyone—and he will strive to keep himself in check. But he will find that his left hand always—always—knows what his right hand is doing. He has become incapable of carrying out his ministry in simple freedom and trust in God's grace. He began running the race of ministry with holy ambition, but he now finds himself on a treadmill of "various expressions of pride."

Every profession has its secret sins and habitual vices—believe me, we have plenty in journalism. We all need prayer in our callings. And no more so than pastors, whose spiritual leadership makes them most vulnerable to the sins that Jesus most severely condemned: hypocrisy and pride.

Is there hope? Of course. Pastors aren't the only people who find themselves trapped in a social milieu where it is impossible not to succumb to sin. It is for habitual and trapped sinners—like pastors, like us—that Jesus died. The hope is not that we can find a perfect church environment in which we can eradicate pastoral pride. The hope is that Jesus loves and uses repentant sinners despite our pride.

This does not mean Jesus doesn't want us to change the way we do church. I sometimes wonder if he's allowing us to reap the fruit of our churchly ambitions—with many pastors burning out or becoming cynical, or resigning in one form of "disgrace" or another—so we will discover anew why the word pastor or shepherd is the name he gives to the church's leaders. That very name suggests that perhaps the church should not be about growth and efficiency, but care and concern, not so much an organization but a community, not something that mimics our high-tech culture but something that incarnates a high-touch fellowship. By God's grace, there is a remnant of such churches alive and well today, with leaders who really are pastors.

In the meantime, do not condemn your pastor when he succumbs to pride and hypocrisy. He's stuck in a religious system from which few escape unscathed. Pray for him. And remind him that grace covers a multitude of sins, and that neither life nor death, nor angels nor principalities, nor the contemporary North American church can separate him from the love of God in Christ Jesus, the Great Shepherd of the church.

Mark Galli is senior managing editor of Christianity Today and author of God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins (Tyndale).

Calvin's "Institutes" (8.1-6): Limits on Church Authority

Calvin continues his review of the Papacy, but enlarges the issue to the limitations of church authority (8.1-9). This has applications to charismatics with their extra-canonical revelations, TBN enthusiasts with their numerous charlatans, pimps of prosperity and related enthusiasms, antichristian Popedom, and contemporary evangelicals with their absence of Confessional boundaries and insights. We must address these contemporary matters directly. Calvin will discuss the limits of the church's doctrinal authority, including the Mosaic priests, the prophets, and apostles along with (8.6) the outline of the scriptural foundation of the Word of God for the Old Covenant. These limitations apply to bishops (senior presbyters), presbyters, deacons, church decrees, councils whether provincial or general, and the priesthood (of all believers).

As to Popedom, that antchristian dominion, the title of chapter eight says it all: THE POWER OF THE CHURCH RESPECTING ARTICLES OF FAITH, AND ITS LICENTIOUS PERVERSION, UNDER THE PAPACY, TO THE CORRUPTION OF ALL PURITY OF DOCTRINE.

Although the Institutes should be on everyone's shelf and read again and again, Calvin is free and downloadable at:

http://www.archive.org/stream/institutesofchrindex02calv/institutesofchrindex02calv_djvu.txt

------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER VIII

THE POWER OF THE CHURCH RESPECTING ARTICLES OF FAITH, AND ITS LICENTIOUS PERVERSION, UNDER THE PAPACV, TO THE CORRUPTION OF ALL PURITY OF DOCTRINE

The next subject is the power of the Church, which is to be considered as residing, partly in the respective bishops, partly in councils, and those either provincial or general. I speak only of the spiritual power which belongs to the Church. Now, it consists either in doctrine, in legislation, or jurisdiction. The subject of doctrine contains two parts — the authority to establish doctrines, and the explication of them. Before we enter on the Particular discussion of each of these points, we would apprize the pious readers, that whatever is asserted respecting the power of the Church, they should be mindful to refer to the end for which Paul declares it to have been given, namely, "to edification, and not to destruction;" and all who make a legitimate use of it, consider themselves as nothing more than "servants of Christ," and the people's "servants for Jesus' sake." Now, the only way to edify the Church is, for the ministers themselves to study to preserve to Jesus Christ his rightful authority, which can no longer be secure than while he is left in possession of what he has received from the Father, that is, to be the sole Master in the Church. For of him alone, and of no other, is it said, "Hear ye him." The power of the Church, therefore, is not to be depreciated, yet it must be circumscribed by certain limits, that it may not be extended in every direction, according to the caprice of men. It will, therefore, be highly useful to observe how it is described by the prophets and apostles. For if we simply grant to men the power which they may be pleased to assume, it must be obvious to every one, what a door will be opened for tyranny, which ought never to be seen in the Church of Christ.

II. Here, therefore, it is necessary to remember, that whatever authority and dignity is attributed by the Holy Spirit, in the Scripture, either to the priests and prophets under the law, or to the apostles and their successors, it is all given, not in a strict sense to the persons themselves, but to the ministry over which they were appointed, or, to speak more correctly, to the word, the ministration of which was committed to them. For if we examine them all in succession, we shall not find that they were invested with any authority to teach or to answer inquiries, but in the name and word of the Lord. For when they were called to their office, it was at the same time enjoined that they should bring forward nothing of themselves, but should speak from the mouth of the Lord. Nor did he send them forth in public to address the people, before he had instructed them what they should say, that they might speak nothing beside his word. Moses himself, the prince of all the prophets, was to be heard above all others ; but he was first furnished with his commission, that he might not be able to announce any thing except from the Lord. Therefore the people, when they received his doctrine, were said to " believe the Lord and his servant Moses." The authority of the priests also, that it might not fall into contempt, was confirmed by the severest punishments, But, on the other hand, the Lord shows on what condition they were to be heard, when he says, "My covenant was with Levi. The law of truth was in his mouth." And just afterwards, "The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth ; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts." Therefore, if a priest would be heard, it was necessary for him to prove himself the messenger of God, by faithfully communicating the commands which he had received from his master ; and Avhere attention to the priests is enjoined, it is expressly stated, that "they shall teach the sentence of the law" of God.

IIL The power of the prophets is fully and beautifully described in Ezekiel. "Son of man," says the Lord, "I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel ; therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me." When he is commanded to hear from the mouth of the Lord, is he not prohibited to invent any thing of himself? And what is it to give warning from the Lord, but, to speak in such a manner as to be able to declare with confidence that the message he has brought is not his own, but the Lord's? The Lord expresses the same thing in other words in the prophecy of Jeremiah: " The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream ; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully." (9') He clearly delivers a law for them all; its import is, that he permits no one to teach more than he has been commanded ; and he afterwards gives the appellation of "chaff" to every thing that has not proceeded from himself alone. Not one of the prophets opened his mouth, therefore, without having first received the words from the Lord. Hence their frequent use of these expressions: "The word of the Lord," " The burden of the Lord," " Thus saith the Lord," " The mouth of the Lord hath spoken ; " and this was highly necessary; for Isaiah exclaimed, "I am a man of unclean lips;" and Jeremiah said, " Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a child." What could proceed from the pollution of the one, and the folly of the other, but impure and foolish speeches, if they had spoken their own words ? But their lips were holy and pure, when they began to be the organs of the Holy Spirit." While the prophets were bound by this law to deliver nothing but what they had received, they were likewise adorned with eminent power and splendid titles. For when the Lord declares, " See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, and to build, and to plant," he at the same time assigns the reason — "Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth."

IV. If we advert to the apostles, they are certainly honoured with many extraordinary characters. It is said that they are "the light of the world," and "the salt of the earth;" that "he that heareth" them "heareth Christ ; " that "whatsoever" they" shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever" they "shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." But their very name shows what degree of liberty they were allowed in their office ; that if they were apostles, they were not to declaim according to their own pleasure, but to deliver with strict fidelity the commands of him who had sent them. And the language of Christ is sufficiently clear, in which he has defined their message by the following commission : "Go ye, and teach all nations whatsoever I have commanded you." He had even received and imposed on himself the same law, in order that no one might refuse to submit to it. " My doctrine," says he, "is not mine, but his that sent me." He who was always the eternal and only counsellor of the Father, and was constituted by the Father the Lord and Master of all, yet because he sustained the office of a teacher, prescribed, by his own example, the rule which all ministers ought to follow in their teaching. The power of the Church, therefore, is not unlimited, but subject to the word of the Lord, and, as it were, included in it.

V. But whereas it has been a principle received in the Church from the beginning, and ought to be admitted in the present day, that the servants of God should teach nothing which they have not learned from him, yet they have had different modes of receiving instruction from him, according to the variety of different periods ; and the present mode diff'ers from those which have preceded it. In the first place, if the assertion of Christ be true, that "no man knoweth the Father except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him," it must always have been necessary for those who would arrive at the knowledge of God, to be directed by that eternal wisdom. For how could they have comprehended the mysteries of God, or how could they have declared them, except by the teaching of him, to whom alone the secrets of the Father are intimately known? The saints in former ages, therefore, had no other knowledge of God than what they obtained by beholding him in the Son, as in a mirror. By this observation I mean that God never manifested himself to man in any other way than by his Son, his only wisdom, light, and truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others, drew all the knowledge which they possessed of heavenly doctrine ; from this fountain the prophets themselves drew all the celestial oracles which they spoke and wrote. But this wisdom has not always manifested itself in the same way. With the patriarchs God employed secret revelations; for the confirmation of which, however, he at the same time added such signs that they could not entertain the least doubt that it was God who spake to them. What the patriarchs had received, they transmitted from hand to hand to their posterity; for the Lord had committed it to them on the express condition that they should so propagate it. Succeeding generations, from the testimony of God in their hearts, knew that what they heard was from heaven, and not from the earth.

VI. But when it pleased God to raise up a more visible form of a church, it was his will that his word should be committed to writing, in order that the priests might derive from it whatever they would communicate to the people, and that all the doctrine which should be delivered might be examined by that rule. Therefore, after the promulgation of the law, when the priests were commanded to teach "out of the mouth of the Lord," the meaning is, that they should teach nothing extraneous, or different from that system of doctrine which the Lord had comprised in the law ; it was not lawful for them to add to it or to diminish from it. Afterwards followed the prophets, by whom God published new oracles, which were to be added to the law ; yet they were not so new but that they proceeded from the law, and bore a relation to it. For in regard to doctrine, the prophets were merely interpreters of the law, and added nothing to it except prophecies of things to come. Except these, they brought forward nothing but pure explication of the law. But because it pleased God that there should be a more evident and copious doctrine, for the better satisfaction of weak consciences, he directed the prophecies also to be committed to writing, and to be accounted a part of his word. To these likewise were added the histories, which were the productions of the prophets, but composed under the dictation of the Holy Spirit. I class the Psalms with the prophecies, because what we attribute to the prophecies is common to the Psalms. That whole body of Scripture, therefore, consisting of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Histories, was the word of God to the ancient Church; and to this standard the priests and teachers, even to the coming of Christ, were bound to conform their doctrine ; nor was it lawful for them to deviate either to the right hand or to the left, because their office was wholly confined within these limits, that they should answer the people from the mouth of God. And this may be inferred from that remarkable passage of Malachi, vhere he commands the Jews to remember the law, and to be attentive to it, even till the publication of the gospel. For in that injunction he drives them off from all adventitious doctrines, and prohibits even the smallest deviation from the path which Moses had faithfully showed them. And it is for this reason that David so magnifies the excellence of the law, and recounts so many of its praises ; to prevent the Jews from desiring any addition to it, since it contained every thing necessary for them to know.

Shepherd, Justification, Covenant, Baptism

http://www.misterrichardson.com/fergusonbr.html

Sinclair Ferguson's Critique of Norman Shepherd's The Covenant Context for Evangelism
by Sinclair Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reproduced with permission from the Banner of Truth Magazine, July-August, 1977.

This was originally part of a book review of The New Testament Student and Theology. After commenting on other articles contained in the book, this review follows.
--------------------------------------------------------

Of the hitherto unpublished articles, the one most likely to attract attention and provoke comment comes from the pen of Norman Shepherd, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary and John Murray's successor as the chairman of the department. He gives us a twenty-five page paper on "The Covenant Context for Evangelism", and his thesis merits more prolonged description and discussion. He has in view the much-discussed notion that reformed evangelism appears to be so much less successful than its Arminian counterpart.

Professor Shepherd proposes, as the solvent of this shameful situation, that "The Covenant affords the perspective from which the evangelistic task of the church ought to be approached"(p 53). There follow from this three basic theses which ought to provide some kind of truly biblical solution to this problem.

1. The Great Commission arises out of and is patterned after the Covenant with Abraham.
2. Reformed evangelistic methodology must be consciously oriented to the covenant of grace rather than to the doctrine of election.
3. Baptism, rather than regeneration is the point of transition from lostness in death to salvation in life.

In the exposition of these three theses, Shepherd offers a great deal to challenge and stimulate thought and reaction, and this must be regarded as one of the primary functions of the paper in view of the original context at which it was given, in a conference of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. But there are a number of criticisms of his position which must be mentioned.

Dr. Shepherd makes no attempt to define his concept of covenant, and yet it is imperative, in view of its centrality to scripture, theology , and history, that this term should be defined, and used with the utmost precision.

Furthermore, it will be readily recognized that the reformed constituency is very conscious, indeed self-conscious, of the criticisms which are leveled at its apparent lack of evangelistic thrust and success. We need to examine ourselves, but there is a very important difference between self-examination and self-consciousness and introversion. We need to remember, when comparisons are drawn between reformed evangelism and that of other Christians, that the statistics of evangelical religion indicate that the reformed constituency is numerically swamped by the multitudes of other persuasions. It is inevitable that the evangelism of Arminianism appears to be more frequent and more successful. Any comparison is faulty, because it is between things that differ to considerably statistically to be properly correlated.

Turning more closely to the thesis which Professor Shepherd enunciates, some further comment is necessary. He assumes that passages like Ephesians 1:1-14 are "suffused with covenantal language". The present reviewer agrees with this contention, and regards it as important. But Shepherd does not sustain his case by demonstration. He gives no indication as to what covenantal language is, and this is a great deficiency. It might be thought that this would belong to the essence of his task in view of the all-pervasiveness of covenant for which he is arguing.

This brings us to one of his major points. He writes that "The prophets and apostles viewed election from the perspective of the covenant of grace, whereas Reformed theologians of a later day have tended to view the covenant of grace from the perspective of election"(p 60). The result of this, it is argued, is that the reformed preacher no longer says "Christ died for you" - but, when these words are construed, not from the point of view of election, but of the covenant, then "The Reformed evangelist can and must say on the basis of John 3:16, Christ died for you."

This demands comment. First, Shepherd appears to adopt the view of the prevailing academic critique of the covenant theology of the seventeenth century (forcefully presented decades ago by Perry Miller), which suggests that the doctrine of covenant somehow makes God's secret counsels less harsh. We ought therefore to look at covenant, and not at election. This analysis, both historically and biblically we reject. It is clear that, in fact, covenant theology arose in a variety of circumstances - sacramental, in the case of Zwingli, biblical and theological, in the case of Calvin, expository and pastoral, in the case of the Puritans. Doubtless, in the case of some writers, Shepherd may be right. But it is an extreme view to charge all reformed writers with this confusion of thought, and to suggest that they have turned the order of scripture on its head. To use Shepherd's own citation - the fact is that some passages, e.g. Ephesians 1:1-14, do employ the mode of looking at covenant from the viewpoint of election. Indeed, in that passage it is necessary for the reader to look for covenant in the context of election. From a more practical point of view - was it because Whitefield and Edwards, Spurgeon and M'Cheyne managed to escape the old reformed straitjacket and discover election it its covenant perspective that they were such great evangelists? It seems highly doubtful. And therefore we are justified in wondering whether this is really the true solution at all.

Shepherd has had the courage to state to the reformed reader that a question mark hangs over the commonly accepted notion that the preacher cannot say: "Christ died for you." In fact Shepherd goes so far as to say that, from this covenantal perspective, the reformed preacher is under obligation to say "Christ died to save you." But that cannot possibly be a proper assessment, for no evangelist in the New Testament shows himself to have been under an inescapable burden to say that. In fact Shepherd is surely confusing two things in John 3:16, to which he refers - the truth that it was the loved world to which God gave his Son (which is affirmed), and the statement, "Christ died to save you" (which is not confirmed). Not only does the reformed evangelist not say this, the apostle John does not say it either.

But most eyebrows will be raised by Professor Shepherd's comment that "Baptism rather than regeneration is the point of transition from lostness in death to salvation in life" (p 66) - to which, it must be added, he provides a note to the effect that "The position here advocated should not be confused with the sacramentalist doctrine of baptismal regeneration" (ibid). His point is that when evangelism is election-oriented, it is also regeneration-oriented, so that the whole thing is viewed from the standpoint of the secret work of God. The problem with this approach is that, "Judgments have to be made which belong properly and exclusively in the hands of God." Just because such judgment belongs to God, the evangelist should not attempt even an approximation" (p 67). This whole view, according to the author, leads to the tension in reformed evangelism of works of preparation for grace, to which he objects: "Even the exhortation to ask for a new heart does not square with insistence on total inability. There is nothing the unregenerate man can do or will do in the direction of his conversion" (p 69). "In contrast to this regeneration - evangelism a methodology oriented to the covenant structure of Scripture and to the Great Commission presents baptism as the point of transition from death to life" (p 71). This, he argues, is demonstrated by the emphasis in the New Testament, not on people being converted, but on their being baptized, and he cites Acts 2:41 and Acts 16:33 as illustrative of this very principle.

There are a number of strands here, and each must be criticised separately. First of all, Professor Shepherd does not seem to give due allowance to the fact that regeneration is not the only work of God. It may have precursors. Jesus said that men, unregenerate as they were, should strive to enter in by the narrow gate that leads to life. Then, in the second place, Shepherd is somewhat guilty of mishandling the tests he quotes in favour of the priority of baptism over conversion. On the one hand the verses do say what he states; but he fails to remind us of other things they state. Thus, for example, that the 3000 who were baptized were those who "gladly received the word", and that Paul and Silas baptized the jailer because he believed in God. They must have borne the distinguishing marks of a work of the Spirit of God. The apostles must have judged these men to be truly regenerate. Rather than draw attention away from conversion, these instances simply highlight that, for the adult, a profession of faith in Christ, and of conversation was a prerequisite for baptism.

Thirdly, Shepherd is guilty at least of confusion of expression, if not more. It is true that baptism is what "should mark the passage from death to life"(p 72), but it is another thing to suggest that it actually constitutes "the point of transition from lostness in death to salvation in life"(p 66). This is to confuse the sign and the thing signified, and to be guilty of an offence against reformed teaching. Surely Professor Shepherd means something different from what he says? It is perhaps not surprising that, while critical of the current expressions that a man is "truly converted" or "really born again", and emphatic that in the New Testament the phraseology was that he was "baptised", and that these other expressions were redundant, he does not himself manage to escape an addition to baptism as the expression of fruitful evangelism, when he says that "All who have been baptized and are seeking to do the will of God are to be regarded as Christian brothers"(p 74, emphasis mine).

These expressions of Professor Shepherd may be seen by Baptist brethren as playing into their hands. The current baptist polemic has made much capital out of the differences and disagreements among paedobaptists over the meaning and place of baptism. The fact that the baptist position is equally out of sorts with itself and that its apologetes present diverse views of the nature of baptism and its relationship, or otherwise, to both covenant and church, is beside the point! Shepherd's position does not clarify matters. Perhaps, in view of the originality which the author is obviously seeking to inject into an important area of discussion, it is inevitable that he has not, apparently, thought through some of the implications of his teaching. For this reason it would be a pity if baptist brethren were to employ his case as typical of the position which aped Baptists are now adopting! In any event, the article leaves us somewhere in the air, and does not convey to this reviewer that the answer to a pressing predicament has been made clear, and that the gospel may now be carried by reformed men to a lost world with a freedom and power that is sadly lacking.

It would be our hope that, for the welfare of the reformed churches, Professor Shepherd would return to the drawing board, and come again, so that we may hear him further on these matters.

Calvin's Institutes.4.7.3: Government, Pompous Titles, Anglicanism, Romanism, Celtic Christianity

Observations from Calvin’s Institutes, 4.7.3, entitled “The proud titles of the latter Roman bishops not yet known in the early period.”

1. The term “Primate” is a term vaunted around in the Papacy. In short, it is a term that grew legs and has a history.

2. Cyprian’s correspondence with Cornelius reveals the terms “brother,” “fellow bishop,” and “colleague.”
The Council of Carthage and the Africans in general forbad the title “prince of priests” and “first bishop” but only “bishop of the prime see.”

3. An examination of the records at this time will reveal that the Roman bishop was content with the appellation “brother.”

4. The Roman structure multiplied names and titles, accruing and growing prideful and arrogant through the centuries, using such terms as “supreme pontiff” and “sole head of the church.”

5. In older days, had the bishop of Rome assumed these titles, “stout-hearted men” would have “suppressed his folly.”

6. Jerome is cited by Calvin. “If authority is sought, the world is greater than a city. Why do you proffer me the custom of one city? Why do you vindicate the claims of a mere handful, from whom has arisen an arrogance contrary to the laws of the church? Wherever a bishop may be, at Rome, or Grubbio, or Constantinople, or Reggio, he is of the same merit and he same priesthood. Power of wealth and lowliness of poverty do not make a higher or lower bishop.” Jerome’s Letters (cxlvi.1.2).

These are Calvin’s. We offer our observations from them.

1. Jerome noted in earlier posts we’ve made that Presbyter and Deacon were the two ancient offices of the church. In this respect, it is biblical. We noted that Calvin spoke without impugnment of godly bishops in their “ancient offices.” Bishop, as something different, was an historic outgrowth. Rome’s dragoons continue their evil obstinacy and have grown wickedly worse since Calvin’s days.

2. The claim to universal headship over the Christ’s Churches was explicitly denied by Gregory the Great, known as Gregory 1 (540-604). He affirmed that if anyone would claim such, it’s arrogance would entitle one to the sobriquet “Antichrist.” To Gregory the Great, Benedict XVI is an "Anti-Christ." Confessional Catholics of the Reformation Churches have been saying this--rightly--for centuries.

3. Calvinism brought the Presbyterians and Reformed Churches closer to the ideals of the ancient churches of Christ. The Lutherans did the same, although Norwegian and Danish expression retained episcopacy.

4. Anglicans, caught in their political and religious unity-questions, a national church, under Elizabeth, were unable to reform the role of the ancient bishop. To that degree, Anglicanism in England failed. Bishops being appointed by Kings and Queens—as is still done in England—with historical agendas, national policies, and little learning was a failed policy. Anglican still bark like kicked and barking poodles when these matters, for reform, are raised.

5. Calvin himself, without the title, served as a bishop of Geneva, or a key leader.Presbyterians and the Reformed have their “bishops,” that is their “leaders” of presbyters. It is not institutional, but it exists. Consider R.C. Sproul, James M. Boice and others. The same applies for other faith bodies. “Leaders” arise. It’s in the nature of things. They can deny it all they like, but seminaries, like Westminster are essential monasteries (with differences) with men functioning as Bishops or Abbots (Presidents).

6. Connectional-ism and wider governance is and was a feature of the early church for local churches. Titus functioned as a Bishop over Crete, though not by that name. Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians have this right re: a wider body exercising governance over local churches. Acts 15, among other texts, make this clear. Baptist, Pentecostal and Congregational polities are not acceptable.

7. Apostolic and tactile succession of bishops is another failure of the post-Restorationist Bishops of England. Actually, it was an "admin" tool to reign in dissenters. Freedom was not optional in those days. Having Rowan Williams lay his dirty hands on an ordinand does nothing to authenticate Christ’s witness, work and ministry in an ordinand.

8. The Anglican ordinal needs revision so that Bishops are made to be equals among their Presbyters, a “first among equals.” The Presbyter should be the thinker and the Bishop should be the one doing the “leg work.” He should be the servant of the Presbyters and College of Presbyters, doing “their bidding.” This actually was the case in Celtic Christianity, prior to the Roman invasion of Canterbury in the 590’s. The Brits should have stuck with their ancient and effective Celtic model...the Celts were effective missionaries, not just in the Isles, but to the Continent.

9. Modern Anglicans aren’t up to all this. They’re mired and enslaved, especially in the West, in their continuing obsessions too many to enumerate here. It’s pretty funny to watch Bishop N. Thomas Wright carrying on about the non-Western (and some Western) bishops who did not attend Lambeth 2008, but attended the GAFCON Conference in Jerusalem, 2008. Sheer unreformed Anglican imperialism, as if other bishops aren’t the equal of Canterbury. The holdover of Erastianism.

10. Don't miss Jerome's point above. He speaks of bishops from two small Italian towns, Reggio and Grubbio, as being equal with Rome and Constantinople. Bishop Scott Clark (he's called Dr. Clark in the Reformed world) is every bit the Bishop as that fool in Canterbury or this "thing" they call Archbishop Bob Duncan (with no doctorate at all). We need more monasteries like Westminster California with Abbots like Dr. Godfrey and Bishops like Dr. Clark. The ACNA Bishops don't impress us at all.