I must admit, this issue is one which I have been bewildered about in the fourteen years of my Christian walk. As a Baptist, I know that we say we are "congregational" in church government...however for me at least, it's been difficult to exactly define. In neither of the two churches I've been a member of, has anything concerning church government been taught. To make matters more confusing, in both those churches, how that government is structured(if indeed it could be called a structure)plays out differently in each congregation. No doubt a result of the belief that each local expression of the body of Christ is autonomous. But I find that variance raises a question for me...which local expression is right? What do the scriptures say about this?
To my admittedly limited knowledge on the subject, there are basically three main forms of church government employed by the various denominations: Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational. All the churches who govern themselves under these three forms, I'm sure believe that the one which they employ is the most Biblical expression. I think regardless of one's views, those views should be conformed to the teaching of scripture. So this brings me back to the question: which form is Biblically correct, or at least the closest to the Biblical pattern? Why, or why not?
I've heard it said that the three marks of a true church are: 1) The faithful preaching and teaching of the Word. 2) Right administration of the sacraments/ordinances. 3) Discipline. Though we might disagree on what constitutes these three marks, I think we could all agree on the importance of all three to any church. What role does church governance have in these three important matters? As we weigh in on this issue and ponder the questions it raises, let's keep in mind these three "marks" of a faithful church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Church Governance & Discipline....What does the Bible teach?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I would like to recommend a excellent book that ponders upon the marks of a healthy church. The book is by Mark Dever, the pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. The book is 9 Marks of a Healthy Church.
Jason,
First, thanks for dropping by. Your thoughts and insights are always welcome here. I know of Mark Dever and 9 Marks Ministries. I've visited the website many times, although I haven't gotten around to reading his book yet. The 3 marks I mentioned, are those which have been regarded, at least in the reformed community, as being essential to being considered a church formed according to Biblical mandate. I absolutely agree with Dever's 9 marks as being evident in a healthy, Biblical church. Feel free to offer your own personal insights on this or any other subject matter that's posted...or if you have a suggestion for a subject which we would all benefit from discussing, please let me know...we're all seeking to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Blessings brother.
allofgrace,
It's been a while--I was finishing comprehensive exams. Dever certainly does offer some good insights on healthy churches. My only disagreement is where he tips his hand to more of a presby form of church government.
Some have also described a biblical style of church government as being pastor led, deacon served, and congregationally approved. Of course that settles almost no issues because it does not define what it means to be pastor led nor congregationally apporved. That is why we have so many different variations of that form.
Regarding your 3 marks of a true church, I have not ever heard of discipline being one of the required marks of a church. I have certainly read and heard about faithful preaching and the administration of the ordinances/sacraments (depending on your tradition). I also want to pose a couple questions for discussion: Must it be "right" administration of the ordinances? Which ordinances must be administered? How faithful must the preaching be? I have my views, but I want to hear the discussion.
Another good book on the issue is Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, by John S. Hammett.
The reformers indeed believed church discipline was one of the essential marks of the New Testament church.
WTB,
I did a little research and found out why I had never seen discipline as a mark of the church. Neither Calvin nor Luther included it in their writings on the church. It was first added to the other two in the Scottish Confession of 1560. This was part of the Scottish reformation led by John Knox. Not having the deep roots in Reformed tradition as it seems you and Allofgrace have, I am not as familiar with Knox and the Scottish end of the Reformation.
However, my questions still stand unanswered. Must it be "right" administration of the ordinances? Which ordinances must be administered? How faithful must the preaching be? And to add discipline, how often must it be administered and for what sins?
Thanks for pushing me on the discipline issue.
evan,
To attempt to answer your questions:
1) Must it be "right" administration of the ordinances? Which ordinances must be administered?
reply: Of course "right" administration of ordinances (Baptist), or sacraments (Presbyterian, Reformed, Anglican(?)) will differ. In either case, those would include baptism and the Lord's Supper/communion. In any of these traditions, the Lord's Supper is given to professed believer's except those within Presby/Reformed circles who have crossed over into paedocommunion, which is condemned by many of the Presby/Reformed churches. In Presby/Reformed churches those under church discipline, or are not members of the congregation but present are not allowed to take communion. This latter restriction can vary from Presby denomination to denomination. For Baptists, we know that the proper partakers of communion are baptized believers by immersion. Some Baptist churches don't allow the Lord's table to be served to those outside the local body. I'm not familiar with Anglican practices so I'm not able to speak intelligently to how they deal with these issues. For the Presby/Reformed churches of course paedobaptism is the practice, but only up to a certain age (which escapes me at the moment), after which they baptize upon public profession of faith by sprinkling or pouring in most instances, but I do know of Presby's who will immerse if requested. Of course we know that Baptists only baptize those who publically profess faith, and is entrance into the local body. That's as best as I can give you on these. Perhaps you could fill in the dead spots.
2) How faithful must the preaching be?
reply: I would assume that "faithful" would be "rightly dividing (handling) the word of truth", not failing to preach the whole counsel of God, "in season, and out of season". Of course I sense your questions are heading toward pointing up the subjectivity of the statements, seeing that the definition of these "marks" vary between traditions. I'll sum up on this point by saying this: I heard a judge once say concerning the definition of obscenity, that though he could not give a hard and fast definition which would apply to every last person in the community, most level-headed people know it when they see it.
3) And to add discipline, how often must it be administered and for what sins?
reply: From what I see in the scriptures, the general way in which sin is dealt with in the church is: private sin privately, public sin publicly. Matt. 18 is the guideline for private sin, which after going through the steps, can be brought before the church (public). Public sin (open sin) was dealt with by the Apostle Paul in 1st and 2nd Corinthians. Discipline always has the goal of restoration (Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:1-11) or salvation, to keep the church pure, and it's testimony to the lost world clean. As to how often?...as often as needed.
As a correction...baptist churches, as we know, baptize by immersion..so for the omission in my answer.
Allofgrace,
Thanks for your answers. The reason I asked the questions was very specific. Many people jump on the terminology "right" administration or "right/faithful" preaching and make that a requirement to be the church. If that were the case, I would argue that Presby, Episc, Meth, etc are not true churches. The only true churches would be Baptist (and then only some of those). This would stem from the issues of baptism and preaching. The argument goes like this--if any "church" practices or teaches paedobaptism, loss of salvation, or any other doctrine that we believe to go against the Bible, then they are not true churches.
This is nothing more than rehashing the old Landmarkism debate of the 19th century (J.R. Graves, J.M. Pendleton, A.C. Dayton). From your answers, it seems you are uncomfortable going down that strict road of Landmarkism, for which I commend you. Thus, when we list the "marks of a true church" we probably need to be careful on the front end to define the terms. I also tend to stay away from the adjective "right" for the very reason of avoiding the whole Landmarkism debate. I prefer the terminology faithful and define it thus: "A church could teach some false (or confused) doctrine or administer ordinances incorrectly and still be a true church, but the intention must be to rightly teach true doctrine and administer ordinances properly." Now certainly, that brings up the problem of how much "confused doctrine" to tolerate. This probably needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis (as any determination of whether a church is a true church).
I also like to add "covenanting together for the sake of the gospel" as a mark of the church. This does not require a formal church constitution or covenant, but it does require a stated purpose of some sort. What we see sometimes overseas is a home Bible study where only the leader or the leader and a couple others are actually believers with the majority being non-believers--and this is sometimes called a church. Usually all except the leader are unaware of such "church status."
Anyway, I just thought those questions were good for bringing up the Landmark controversy that appears when these discussions are entertained. Thanks for your answers.
evan,
You corrected what I felt needed to be in my original post...faithful rather than true...I am anything but a landmarker..as I tried to point out, probably inadequately, what constitutes "faithful" in any of these "marks" depends on how each tradition interprets the Biblical revelation..but you make a good point..how much incorrect doctrine can be tolerated. Covenanting together was one of the hallmarks of the Scottish reformation.
Post a Comment