When the
'licentiate' is 'ordained' we'll stay away. I don't recognize the authority of
the presbytery. It, like all denominations are para-church organizations. This
'service' is nothing more than homage, a ceremony to clericalism. We'll stay
away, but we'll return the following Sunday and try to keep encouraging others
and hopefully be encouraged.
Assuming the model
For years I
have listened to and read everything I can get my hands on when it comes to
Church Membership and any kind of defense of Presbyterianism or Denominationalism.
Not only have I not been convinced
but I have moved ever further from the position. Time after time I watch men
exercise flimsy arguments based off wild exegesis in their attempts to justify
their practice.
They take
verses that deal with true Church Membership...being a Christian and then make
a massive leap assuming the validity of their Form-Bureaucratic system,
mindset, and practice.
I watch for
this very carefully. Often I'll hear a programme on Church Membership...45
minutes or an hour long and they never really even deal with any of the
foundational issues. It's just a pragmatic attempt to deal with the
individualism of our culture. Again, I'm against church shopping and
non-commitment, but that doesn't justify this alternative model they've tried
to impose on the Church.
Individualism?
I've been
charged with exhibiting American Individualism in how I approach this issue. I
sincerely ask...is that what I'm doing? Is that the basis of the argument I'm
making against this system? Are my arguments just an expression of
anti-authoritarian American culture?
They'll go
on about our life in Christ, being part of the body, commitment, submission to
authority, accountability, fellowship and all the rest. I agree with it, but it
doesn't mean this Faction-system is justified.
Ironically
it's all supposedly to promote unity. It's promoting schism. When a Christian
family with nowhere to go can't be fully part of the Church by communing because
they won't submit to a man-made system...the elders of that Church are in error
and promoting schism.
I've met
with many elders over the years and when I ask the simple question...where can
I find this in Scripture?....the response is always the same...a blank look.
Everyone just assumes the validity of the whole framework.
Sufficiency and simplicity
The
Scriptures are sufficient for the life of the Church. Biblical Church
government pictures congregations interacting and helping one another. The
unity and bond is Spiritual it doesn't function like a government or corporate
bureaucracy. I realize this isn't very helpful if trying to promote a national
or societal vision, nor if you think the unity rests in some kind of clerical
aristocracy or denomination. The Church doesn't need offices with file
cabinets, secretaries typing at computers, it doesn't Roberts Rules of Order.
It doesn't need to function using parliamentary procedure with committees and
budgetary plans. It doesn't need tax identification numbers and corporate
non-taxable bank accounts. It doesn't need the IRS to tell it how to structure
itself and create trustees and by-laws.
The
Scriptures present a very simple model, very modest and it's more than
sufficient. Local congregations led by local elders who don't live in
isolation. Big visions for society, desire for power, attempts to plug the Church
into a large Sacral vision do not justify innovation and perhaps the better way
to answer some of these questions is to re-assess the way they're being asked.
The 'stewardship' trap
Appealing to
'stewardship' or 'order' and using them as a blanket justification for creating
endless new levels of bureaucracy has also been terribly abused. If a church in
a neighbouring town is trying to help some orphans or battered women or
something and you want to help, give them some money. Well without a bureaucracy
we can't account for it, they might waste it. That's true. If you don't trust
them then don't give it to them. In the end people seem to forget you're giving
the money to the Lord. If they steal the money and run off to Mexico, it
doesn't lessen what you did. That's focusing on the wrong thing. Sure, if you
think they're misusing the money or wasting it, don't give them any more or
perhaps give them less. This micro-managing money efficiency model at work in
the Church and in how the Church relates to helping individuals is rooted more
in our culture's attitudes and doctrines about money than it is Scripture.
Often it is used as an excuse to disregard what the Bible says about money and
giving.
The Biblical
vision of the Church is much simpler and frankly appealing. The Presbyterian
vision which is no different than many other factions is oppressive and in one
sense dangerous in that professes to represent Biblical Christianity.
Signs of the times
We'll attend
as long as we can...until they essentially drive us out for refusing to
conform. I strongly dislike their system but I dislike staying at home even
more. I pray that others will wrestle with these questions and eventually
Remnant churches will begin to appear. I know of course of the House Church movement
and in some senses I find it encouraging. I don't want to launch it all of that
right now, but from what I've seen many of them are indeed rooted in cultural
attitudes about individualism rejecting authority, an anti-intellectualism
which is hostile to doctrine and an attempt to interact with historic
Christianity, or in mistaken Charismatic notions. It is chaotic, but I don't
think the answer is to create another organization. I would say we work where
we are at, and work on the congregation we're a part of. Beyond that, I think
we're to be patient and trust the Spirit to hold the Church together. I could
say much more related to those issues, but that's all for another time.
Why this series?
I decided to
write this because I know shortly I will be asked to give an account for why we
didn't attend the ordination service and why we're refusing to 'join' even
though our presence, our multi-month presence has shown we're already an
integral part of the group. If you asked anyone there who are the families that
are part of your church...ours would be named. When the 'pastor' talks about
the families in the Church, he means ours as well.
But suddenly
in a few months when they start incorporating 'membership' then lines will be
drawn, and suddenly we'll be outside the camp. I will share this article with
them or at least part of it.
Actions louder than words
In closing
I'm reminded of a Reformed Congregation which decided to join with the
Presbyterian system. They already had ordained their pastor and had 'membership'
as it is commonly understood. Upon joining the Presbyterian denomination the
pastor had to be 're-ordained' and 'installed' and each 'member' had to
're-join' or 'join' under the forms used by the Presbyterian denomination.
That's not about any kind of Biblical order. That's about faction and power,
and nothing more. The people went along with it, but a few were miffed. Even
that was a bit too much for them and seemed an unwarranted exercise of
authority.
Everyone
says the Scriptures are sufficient, but then they treat them as not so when it
comes to the Christian life, Church government, and worship.
The Bible
tells Christians how to live with the world but it doesn't tell the world, or
the Church in the world how to build society, government, the arts, politics,
economics and the rest.
And yet
these are the areas modern Christians insist the Bible is sufficient. They
build elaborate systems...only loosely related to the Bible and often taken
terribly out of context and insist these man-made constructs are Biblical.
But then the
Scriptures aren't sufficient when it comes to the Church? They would deny that's
what they're doing. I hope if anything I've shown (at least in part) that's
exactly what they're doing.
What's
driving all this? What's driving men to create all these man-made structures
and claim them to be Biblical?
It's always
the same problem...men want power. And power needs an argument of authority in
order to be legitimate. For Christians, appealing to the Bible makes for a
strong argument. I'm afraid too many are keen to argue whatever they do
represents the 'Biblical' way. The claims need to be examined and in many cases
challenged.