As far as
Church Government goes, we're convinced of and committed to Congregationalism.
We don't believe in larger denominational bodies and yet in no way does this
mean that we believe individual congregations should act in isolation.
Ideally
congregations should be in fellowship with and eager to aid, assist and
encourage one another. Congregationalists are often viewed as schismatics
because they have not joined with some larger institutional bureaucracy.
In fact it
is the denominationalists who are guilty of schism. They have drawn the lines
that divide and find themselves largely unable to function alongside of
congregational bodies because of the man-made bureaucratic barriers they have
erected. Pulpits cannot be shared, prayers cannot be made, and monies cannot be
joined due to the boundaries they have erected. The local congregation is free
to act, while the denominational body has tied its own hands.
This is not
merely a pragmatic issue. We think it's a Biblical one. The Scriptures speak of
individual congregations and while it addresses regional groups of churches
nowhere does the New Testament provide a structure that would tie them
together.
At this
point one's view of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) plays a significant part.
Are the Scriptures sufficient? Do we have what we need to know how to function?
Or are the Scriptures merely a starting point? Do they give us foundation
stones and then through deduction and tradition we build forms of Church government
to fit our needs and context? Most have answered the last question in the
affirmative.
We don't
believe the latter position is faithful to Scripture and in fact carries the
seeds of what later would become the Episcopal hierarchy that developed in the
latter stages of the early Church. The early Church was plagued with false
claims of authority and as a pragmatic measure turned to Apostolic Succession
in seed form. This minor deviation eventually led to Metropolitan Bishoprics
and ultimately the Papacy. We believe Presbyterian government is basically the
same creature, just at an earlier developmental stage.
Acts 15 is
often cited as an example of a regional or denominational Church body. But this
argument fails on several key points.
This
assembly was Apostolic. The declarations of the Jerusalem council were stamped
by the approval of the Apostles declaring that it seemed good to them and to
the Holy Ghost.
No assembly
can make that claim today and thus to some extent, at the very least, this
council cannot be declared as normative.
That said,
individual congregations can work together to address and solve problems. They
can issue statements but since we have no council of Apostles, and the New
Testament does not prescribe any kind of regional body the declarations are not
authoritative.
Just as with
many other issues, unity cannot be found in creating man-made forms. Having
everyone sign on to documents or put the same symbol on their outdoor sign or
even having every teacher 'approved' by some kind of contrived ecclesiastical
body does not guarantee unity either. That is brought about by the Holy Spirit.
The New
Testament teaches that Congregations are independent but not isolated.
They are to
be ruled by a plurality of elders assisted by deacons. The New Testament knows
nothing of our modern notion of a pastor. This is essentially a leftover from
the old Roman Catholic system of having a parish priest coupled with the
retention of the false clergy-laity distinction.
The New
Testament does teach that we should have ordained officers, but they are not
'clergy', they are not a spiritual aristocracy. Elders should do the bulk of
the teaching and certainly have authority within the Church body. It is to be
expected that some will labour in the Word and Doctrine to an extent that
others do not. This does not mean we have two classes of elders...Ruling and
Teaching. Rather we have elders, some who are more gifted at administration and
some who are more gifted when it comes to teaching. There's no warrant for the
creation of separate offices. They bear the same office and possess the same
authority.
Unlike
clergy, they are leaders by example and only wield the power of discipline when
necessary. They are not life coaches, micromanagers or congregational spouses
that 'head' the congregation as a husband to a wife. Many such analogies have
been used in the past.
Deacons
which function as elders in many Churches.... while Elders/Bishops are referred
to wrongly as pastors.... hold a non-authoritative office, one of service and
assistance to those in need in the congregation and possibly the larger
community.
The words
Elder (Presbyter) and Overseer (Bishop) are used synonymously in the New
Testament and the office is restricted by the Apostles to qualified men. Churches
that have women engaged in public teaching and/or are ordained have
functionally denied Scripture as their authority. Some Charismatics have found
ways to circumvent the New Testament norm, but their position at its foundation
opposed to Scripture Alone as the ultimate authority.
Paul in
Titus suggests that congregations can be established on a provisional basis
with things left wanting as it were, things not yet fully ordered.
This is our
present situation. We are establishing this congregation and in due time we
hope to formally ordain officers and better establish our order and practice.
That said, we have no intention on pursuing affiliation, incorporation or
producing by-laws or even a constitution.
The teaching
is overseen by the elders but beyond that men may contribute to the meeting.
They can share and teach as long as they are under the authority of the elders.
As we don't have a fully established presbytery (council of elders) at this
time, we are trying to work together and be in constant communication.