;)
My Three Churches: An Excursion in Biblical Ecclesiology
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life, Church & Missions
I made a statement on my post here that I would like to “revise and extend.” It is not my use of the term ecumenical – I already admitted that I only used that term out of pure orneryness. I said that I believe that there is only one church in any town – advocating the “city-church” idea. I want to change my tune, just slightly, after further study.
We have been debating the question of the nature of the church quite actively at this site and others. Many bloggers focus almost entirely on the local church. Others give far more emphasis to the universal church. One “local church” adherent described the universal church as “imaginary.” Those with a higher view of the universal church tend to accuse the local church only folks of being separatist, divisive, exclusivist and elitist. The discussion has been intense.
The question is this: when the Bible uses the term “church” does it refer to the local church only, or to both the local and universal churches?
It amazes me how we deal with questions like this on blogs. We appeal to confessions, to great scholars and theologians of the past and often spend little time discussing the scriptures themselves. In the recent explosion of controversy after the John 3:16 Conference, I read more discussions of what Spurgeon said than what Scripture says. Maybe I am exaggerating a little, but I think we need to argue scripture. I hear discussions of baptism and the Lord’s supper that discuss historic Baptist practices and confessional statements, but seldom even reference a verse of scripture.
So, I did something simple. I just went to my Logos Software and found every reference in the Bible that mentions the church. I am not a scholar. I just used a simple observational technique. I would invite you to do the same.
I looked at every scripture I could find that mentioned the church and asked myself, what church is the author talking about – a local church, a universal church? In this article, I will share the results of my study. I present them as a discussion starter, not as a final word. I did a simple scriptural survey and here is what I found. Take it for what it is worth.
Thesis: I found that there are three common and distinct “churches” in view in scriptures. I will take them in order numerically – the first church is the most commonly mentioned, the second has fewer references, and the third church is the least frequently mentioned.
My Gathered Church
Far and away, most references to church seem to refer to the gathered saints – called from the world into fellowship, worship and service to the King. The “local church” is far and away the most common church mentioned in scripture.
I will take instruction from someone more knowledgeable in church history than I, but my understanding is that the saints gathered in homes around their city. The Jerusalem church was at 5000 people early on in Acts, and there is no way they all met together. All over Jerusalem, churches gathered in homes or wherever they could find to meet to worship the Crucified and Risen Lord. At least 4 times I can find, a specific reference is made to a church that meets in a particular home – the basic unit of “the church.” Romans 15:5 references the church that meets in Prisca and Aquila’s home. In Colossians, a church met in Nympha’s home (Col 4:16). Philemon 2 also mentions a house church as does 1 Corinthians 16:19.
A church seems to be a gathering of believers. In 1 Corinthians 11:18, Paul gives instructions for observing the Lord’s Supper. He says, “When you come together as a church.” He also gives instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14 on the role of women in worship and the use of tongues and prophecy. All of these seem focused on the church gathered for worship and edification.
As I said, it seems clear to me that the vast majority of references to the church referred to a gathering of God’s people. I found very little instruction on issues that we spend much time arguing. There is little on could find on the qualifications for membership or the administration of baptism or communion. Scripture discusses their meaning, but has precious little I could find about the means of observing them.
My Geographical Church
This is what I focused on in my last post. There are many references in scriptures to “the church” (singular) in a city. The church at Ephesus. The church of Corinth. The church of the Thessalonians. There seems to be a sense in which all of the individual churches that meet in a particular town are also seen in scripture as a single entity.
It is interesting that this is not true of regions. 1 Corinthians 16:1 (and Galatians 1:2) mentions the churches of Galatia. 2 Corinthians 8:1 speaks of the churches of Macedonia. 1 Thessalonians 2:14 speaks of “the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea.” In a region, there are churches. In a city, there is one church. And yet, each home gathering of believers is also a church.
When I advocated this “city-church” concept in my last post, I got a lot of feedback (intense, good spirited and lively debate – the kind I love) about the practicability of such a concept. How does the city-church work? How can Baptists and Assemblies and Wesleyans and Presbyterians all see themselves as one church.
It is possible that we will never attain the biblical ideal on this, now that the church has diverged so much doctrinally and no longer has apostolic authority to guide it. But I do not think that the difficulty in achieving this kind of mindset should stop us from striving toward the ideal.
I have seen what I think is a model of this concept. In Cedar Rapids, I was pastor of one church, Northbrook Baptist Church. But we had very active and wonderful fellowship amongst the churches. We met for fellowship, we prayed for one another. In the most difficult time of my ministry there, the prayer of my fellow pastors carried me through. When we needed a home for a few months, an Assembly of God member opened their (mansion-like) home to us. Revival came to our church because Claude King was coming for a conference at a local Charismatic church and the pastor asked me if I’d like to have Claude speak. God came down that day.
I was part of a group of pastors. We fellowshipped at the “lowest common denominator” – our commitment to Christ and his gospel. We prayed together. We supported one another. What changed primarily was our hearts. We all pastured our individual churches but saw ourselves as part of something bigger.
It is kind of nebulous and hard to describe. I can only tell you that I was once involved in a city-church, and it was such a great blessing. I guess I should be active in forming such a thing here in Sioux City. I miss it so much.
My Greater Church
I only call it that because the bylaws of the SBC require alliteration. This is the universal church. There are several passages that seem to clearly refer to that “imaginary” universal church – all the redeem of all the world and even perhaps all the ages.
Paul told the Corinthians “We were all baptized in one Spirit into one body and given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Corinthians 12:13). In that same chapter, verse 28, Paul says that God appointed in “the church” (singular) apostles, prophets, teachers and so on. But, there were not apostles in each local gathering, were there? This seems to refer to the whole church, not any individual part of it.
I found two markers for the universal church. Every time I saw the phrase “the church of God” it seemed to be a reference to the universal church. (1 Corinthians 10:32, Galatians 1:13, 1 Corinthians 15:9) It also seemed that when “the body of Christ” was described, it always (or almost always) seemed to be a universal reference. Ephesians 1:22-23 talks about how God made Christ “head over all things to the church, which is his body.” Colossians 1:18 says that Christ is “the head of the body, which is the church.” In Colossians 1:24, Paul talks about his sufferings and how they relate to “Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” Perhaps the clearest references to the universal church come in the controversial discussion of husband/wife relationships in Ephesians 5:23-33. It seems clear to me that the church there is universal more than it is local.
So, that’s what I found. I give these as “preliminary findings” not as established facts. If you have a different perspective or interpretation, I would love to hear it.
I have another submission soon, and I can always revise and extend my remarks again!
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Dave,
Thanks for your further thoughts on this. As you know, I am essentially in agreement with what you say here.
The only “tweaks” I would offer to the model you present are:
1. Since I do not see Scripture anywhere saying there are “three different churches,” I prefer to speak of the One True Church (http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/05/07/the-one-true-church/), which has these different “expressions.”
2. Not saying you took this approach, but I think it is important, upon attempting and exhaustive study of the church, to not only isolate all appearances of the word “ekklesia,” but also other terms that may be regarded as synonyms, or metaphorical equivalents. As I understand it, the study of B. H. Carroll, which is often adduced as a big support for the “local church preeminence” position, makes this error.
3. We must do something with that pesky little reference in Acts 9:31 to “the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria.” This is a big reason for my preference for the different “expressions” of the One True Church view. Cities are a natural level at which church relationships and interaction take place, and should take place, and thus are mentioned often in this context. However, the world in which we live is not composed of cities alone.
4. Some of the “local church preeminence” folk also prefer to talk of the univeral church as only an eschatological reality, which will become “church” only on the final day, when we are all gathered together around the Throne of the Lamb. My answer to this is that, while there is some truth to this, God is in the process right now of building His Church. Just because the building is not yet completed does not mean it does not yet exist.
Dave,
You said,”It is interesting that this is not true of regions. 1 Corinthians 16:1 (and Galatians 1:2) mentions the churches of Galatia. 2 Corinthians 8:1 speaks of the churches of Macedonia. 1 Thessalonians 2:14 speaks of “the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea.” In a region, there are churches. In a city, there is one church. And yet, each home gathering of believers is also a church.” Could this be because the Church didnt have groups splintering off, yet. Like, say, a group saying that baptism was just sprinkling on the head? Or, another group saying that baptising babies was the way to do it? Or, another group saying that we have to work to keep saved? You see what I’m saying? Maybe the Church, with the Apostles and prophets around, kept the Church from dividing in these ways. Of course, the Church at Corinth was fleshly and having strife, and some of the other Churches had gnostics and Judaizers trying to divide…which the Apostles put down. We dont have any Apostles today to tell the Methodists and the Presbyterians to quit baptising wrong. And, we dont have any Apostles today to tell the Arminians to repent of their semi-Pelagian beliefs, or to start believing in the eternal security of the Believer. We do have the Word of God, but some refuse to see the truth in it about these very important doctrines. Thus, we have Churches of many different denominations.
David
Brother David (007),
You said:
Then you said:
I know you dealt with their correction by apostolic authority. That is fine. However, I would like to make a note that there is NO indication in the New Testament that people who were in error ceased to be brothers and sisters or that somehow their local expressions of church were no longer valid. Even in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes, “to the church of God that is in Corinth.”
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Vol,
You make some good points. I believe that you are right to conclude that the church is and will always be open to error. Baptism, for instance, was something that scripture records clearly as done immediately upon the God placing an individual into His church. Denominations have taken a simple concept (baptism) received by a member and have used it to drive their systems of theology….whether it is Catholics, PCA or Baptist.
I submit, that if we baptize those that confess Christ as Lord “immediately”, as was the case revealed in scripture, then we would return to how the early churches understood baptism…. as identification with Christ alone and not some church design or system. This would create real discipleship and doctrinal clarity, while reducing the struggle for denominational dependence.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother David (007),
You said:
Then you said:
I realize you have dealt with their correction by apostolic authority. That is fine. However, I would like to make a note that there is NO indication in the New Testament that people who were in error ceased to be brothers and sisters or that somehow their local expressions of church were no longer valid. Even in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes, “to the church of God that is in Corinth.”
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Points where I agree with you regarding what the Bible clearly teaches:
1. The preponderance of references to the church in the New Testament are in the local sense.
2. Churches in the New Testament period did not own meeting houses. So they all met elsewhere, including often in houses.
3. The appearance of the plural word “churches” speaks volumes about whether there is only one church with multiple expressions.
4. We have no instance of multiple churches in a given municipality in the New Testament.
Points where I think you may be going beyond what the Bible says:
1. Location does not necessitate nature: A church meeting in a house is not necessarily what modern types would refer to as a “house church” any more than the start-up I pastored in Royse City, TX was some interesting kind of something we might term a “restaurant church.” We were just a church that met in a restaurant; they may very well have just been churches that met in a house.
2. In Jerusalem we can reasonably deduce that the large number of converts were meeting in separate houses. But in no other case do we really have any iron-clad indication of multiple “house churches” constituting one “city church.” For all we know, in a given city all of the Christian believers constituted a single church that, for lack of another meeting place, met in somebody’s house. Indeed, I think that several of the Corinthian admonitions only make good sense in that sort of scenario: chapter 5′s admonition to assemble together in order to practice church discipline; chapter 11′s uniform statement of abuses at the Lord’s Supper (which, if they involved only one faction meeting, there’s certainly no indication in the text), and the contrast between their houses as a place to eat vs. their place of worship.
3. In Jerusalem, if there are house churches constituting a city church, it is manifestly obvious that all of the members were equally eligible for membership in any of the smaller groups, all of the elders were equally recognized as elders eligible to lead any of the smaller groups, and it is explicitly stated over and over and over that they were in absolute doctrinal agreement. They followed the apostles’ teachings. Frankly, Dave, this does not resemble at all some mere cordiality between you and your congregation on the one hand and an Assembly of God pastor and his congregation on the other hand. Certainly we can have a good discussion about how cordial we ought to be toward congregations of other denominations (or even of the same denomination!) in our local area, but let’s not pretend that either outcome of that discussion is a fulfillment of the New Testament ideal of Christian unity.
Dave,
Good word. Call me a pragmatist if you’d like, but I’m hoping your follow-up teases out the implications of these ideas for the church today. That’s where I suspect the fireworks will start getting lit.
David,
I like your “one church with different expressions” formulation. I was emphasizing the three different uses of the word. Your statement vaguely recalls sort of a trinitarian formula – one essence, three persons. I’m not saying that is what is in effect here, I’m just saying I see a similarity.
As to your second point, I agree again, and that is why I tried to present this as a preliminary study, not as some sort of definitive thing. I was only trying to ask the focused question – to what does the word “church” refer.
Acts 9:31 seems to be a reference to the universal church. At that time, the “church” only extended in those regions. In other words, wasn’t “Judea and Galilee and Samaria essentially the entire universe of the church?
The references I take to the universal church all seem to speak of a present reality, with the exception of the “Bride” section in Ephesians 5.
Always appreciate your insight. I hope to keep on sorting this whole thing out.
Dave,
Check out this quote from John L Dagg:
“Paul considered himself a member of the church here intended: “By one Spirit are WE all baptized into one body.” And it appears, that he was not the only apostle whose membership was in this church: “God hath set some in the church; first, apostles.” Peter had a party in this church, who said, “We are of Cephas;” but no one has hence inferred, that Peter’s church-membership was at Corinth–and there is little proof that Paul and Apollos, though made heads of factions there, had membership in that particular locality”
* Manual Of Church Order; Pg. 112
I think we can go even beyond what Dagg said concerning Paul. I think there is “proof” that Paul was NOT a member of the local church and yet still says “WE all baptized into one body”.
My proof is 1 Cor. 14:23:
“If therefore the WHOLE CHURCH be COME TOGETHER into ONE PLACE, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that YE are mad?
Paul here speaks absolutely of the local church at Corinth assembling–WHOLE church–and separates himself from the complete local church by not saying “WE are mad”, but “YE are mad?”
Gotta love that old English, eh?
Benji
David Worley, you said,
“Could this be because the Church didnt have groups splintering off, yet. Like, say, a group saying that baptism was just sprinkling on the head? Or, another group saying that baptising babies was the way to do it? Or, another group saying that we have to work to keep saved? You see what I’m saying? Maybe the Church, with the Apostles and prophets around, kept the Church from dividing?”
I definitely agree. The only question I have is whether if Apostolic authority was reinstituted, if correction would only come to the Paedobaptists and Arminians. I do not have the same confidence you have in the synonymity of Baptist and biblical. I wonder if we baptists might not come in for some rebuke and correction ourselves.
Leaving that behind, my understanding of the early church is that when the apostles faded from the scene, heresy arose alarmingly quickly.
Benji, good observation. (except about the old English – me and King James aren’t that good of friends.)
Bart, referencing the points you made.
1) I am not sure we have a disagreement here. It may have just been the way I wrote it. I was not intended to define the Jerusalem or other “house churches” with today’s house-church movement. If I implied that, permit me to correct that here.
My point is that there is evidence of a “city-church” in which all the churches are seen as one church, yet churches in individual homes, which are also called the church.
2) Yes, Jerusalem is the only church where a number of believers is specified – one large enough to permit meeting in a single place. But it would seem logical to me to assume that Ephesus and Corinth, at least, had enough size to warrant multiple locations.
Bart, do you know of anyone who has done a good historical, archaeological study about how the early church functioned. How did they gather? Where? I have read opinions and projections on this, but I would love to read something more definitive as I work through these things.
3) I will admit that maintaining both a city-church and a local church (home church) was much easier in the days of apostolic authority than it is today. I am not sure we will ever be able to fully restore such a thing. But I think it is still a noble ideal. We should strive for unity, fellowship, even partnership as we can, as long as we are not compromising our convictions.
I think about the best we can hope for at this time is fellowship and unity, wishing each other the best, and joining hands where we can.
But David Rogers had a good point above – he referred to the eschatological unity of the church. Maybe, the original unity of the church has been shattered beyond human repair, but we can still seek unity among the brethren while we wait for Christ to reunite us by His power.
4) You mentioned something (perhaps even a throw-away line) at the end of your point 3. Sometimes it is harder for me to be united with other SBC pastors than it is with the Assemblies folks across the street.
That is not a philosophical statement, just an observation.
Dave et al,
While I think John Reisinger’s article was somewhat simplistic regarding the meaning of Ekklesia [in that he seemed to ignore the different contexts in which the word is found], I do wonder if the “basic” meaning of the word should be the “called out ones”.
Should the basic meaning of the word be the one above with a secondary meaning of “assembly” in some or many biblical contexts?
It does seem to me that if we think the basic or fundamental meaning of the word is assembly, then we will think of the church as, in the words of John Reisinger, an “it”.
Reisinger argues against this in favor of “people”. And when it comes to the basic meaning of the word in the sphere of Scripture, I wonder if he is right.
Think of the consequences of both views.
If you think the church is fundamentally an “it”, then if people tamper with the organization, then, they [in your eyes] are it! [i.e., they are in big trouble]
If you think the church is fundamentally “people, then if someone harms the people, then, they [in your eyes] have done something terribly wrong.
There might be some overstatement in what I said above, but I think you guys probably see where I am going.
God Bless,
Benji
P.S. David, I agree with you that synonyms or metaphorical equivalents need to be looked at as well.
Dave, a few of my thoughts on the church follow:
1. The word “ekklesia” means more than “called-out ones.” It is true that “ek” (out of) and “kaleo” (to call) form roots of the word, but to say that “ekklesia” only means “called-out ones” is to fall into the root fallacy. Just as “butterfly” (an extreme example) cannot be defined by its root words “butter” and “fly,” so “ekklesia” cannot be totally defined by its root words. The word “ekklesia” clearly includes the idea of an assembly. The word was used to mean “assembly” in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. In the New Testament it referred to a future assembly in heaven (Ephesians 5:25-27), to the local churches, and to the church in an institutional or generic sense (Matthew 18:17). The word referred to a secular assembly in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41. All the Christians on earth at the present time cannot be assembled. Thus, the universal church is not yet present. It will be present when all the redeemed of all the eras of history are assembled in heaven. A local church does not cease to exist when it is not assembled, but each of its members have been assembled with other members in an official meeting of the local church at least once. Such an assembly is now impossible in terms of the universal church.
2. You said the following:
“Paul told the Corinthians ‘We were all baptized in one Spirit into one body and given the one Spirit to drink.’ (1 Corinthians 12:13). In that same chapter, verse 28, Paul says that God appointed in ‘the church’ (singular) apostles, prophets, teachers and so on. But, there were not apostles in each local gathering, were there? This seems to refer to the whole church, not any individual part of it.”
B. H. Carroll, the founder of Southwestern Baptist Seminary, in his “Ecclesia” discussed the “body”:
“When the calling out is ended, and all the called are glorified, then the present concept of a general assembly will be a fact. Then and only then actually, will all the redeemed be an ecclesia. Moreover, this ecclesia in glory will be the real body, temple, flock of our Lord. But the only existing representation or type of the ecclesia in glory (i.e., the general assembly) is the particular assembly on earth. And because each and every particular assembly is the representation, or type, of the general assembly, to each and every one of them is applied all the broad figures which pertain to the general assembly. That is, such figures as ‘the house of God,’ ‘the temple of the Lord,’ ‘the body,’ or ‘flock.’ The New Testament applies these figures, just as freely and frequently, to the particular assembly as to the general assembly. That is, to any one particular assembly, by itself alone, but never to all the particular assemblies collectively. There is no unity, no organization, nor gathering together and, hence, no ecclesia or assembly of particular congregations collectively. So also the term ecclesia cannot be rationally applied to all denominations collectively, nor to all living professors of religion, nor to all living believers collectively. In no sense are any such unassembled aggregates an ecclesia. None of them constitute the flock, temple, body or house of God, either as a type of time or a reality of eternity. These terms belong exclusively either to the particular assembly now or the general assembly hereafter. . . . Again to the particular church at Corinth Paul wrote: “Ye are God’s building—ye are a temple of God and the Spirit dwelleth in you… Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 12:27). When concerning the body of Christ he says: ‘And whether one member suffereth all the members suffer with it,’ he is certainly not speaking of the Ecclesia in Glory, all of whose members will be past sufferings when constituting an ecclesia.”
You also said,
“I found two markers for the universal church. Every time I saw the phrase “the church of God” it seemed to be a reference to the universal church. (1 Corinthians 10:32, Galatians 1:13, 1 Corinthians 15:9) It also seemed that when ‘the body of Christ’ was described, it always (or almost always) seemed to be a universal reference.”
As I mentioned under #1, the word “ekklesia” can be used in a generic or institutional sense. The same thing is true with “overseer/bishop” (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7). There is a Great Shepherd, Jesus Christ, but other people do not serve as “universal overseers/bishops.” The word “episkopos” in 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:7 is used in a generic or institutional sense rather than in the sense of a universal overseer/bishop.
3. Before Jesus gave the Great Commission, He used the word “church” twice—once in Matthew 16:18 and once in Matthew 18:17. Let’s look at each of those verses.
Matthew 16:18 – “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” (NASB)
This verse is probably used more than all others to prove the current existence of a universal church. The word “church” here, however, was used in the generic/institutional sense and/or in the sense of the future universal assembly in heaven. The big rock (petra) was the foundation of the church. This big rock refers to supernatural revelation (including Jesus Himself, the Cornerstone), not to Peter, the little stone (Petros). After Peter called Jesus the Christ and Son of the living God (16:16), Jesus said that the Father had revealed that fact to Peter (16:17). Both local assemblies and the future heavenly assembly are built on supernatural revelation.
Matthew 18:17 – “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (NASB)
“Tell” in the verse is an aorist imperative active form. He was clearly addressing discipline in a local church context, not in a universal church context. In order to discipline members, the members must be known. Thus, there should be no “open membership” in local churches. Clearly, Jesus was not talking about the universal church in 18:17.
4. David Rogers brought up Acts 9:31:
“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.” (NASB)
Remember that the church at Jerusalem had been scattered by persecution in the previous chapter:
Acts 8:1 – “Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.” (NASB)
Notice that the verse says that the Jerusalem church was scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. The Christians in those places were still considered to be members of the Jerusalem church at that time. (I was a member of Bellevue when I served as an IMB missionary in South Korea.) Remember that the apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter and John (Acts 8:14) when they heard about what was happening in Samaria. Philip, of course, was an officer of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5).
BT,
I am not exactly sure what you are advocating, but if I read you right, you are saying that the universal church is only eschatological, when we all gather with Christ.
I think what you are doing is forcing one of the views of the church onto every usage of the word.
I see this sometimes when the word “save” appears in scripture. That word sometimes appears in contexts other than “grant eternal salvatiion from sin.” I think people sometimes force the specific theological term on every usage of the word.
I would agree that the vast majority of usages of the word point to a local gathering of believers. But I think it is not justified to say that every use of the word follows that pattern.
I think there is a danger of forcing a view of scripture on the text rather than drawing a view from the text.
Dave, you said,
“I think there is a danger of forcing a view of scripture on the text rather than drawing a view from the text.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be implying that I have engaged in eisegesis rather than exegesis. I have seen this accusation made in contexts where people simply disagree about the interpretation of Scripture. In other words, two people who disagree can both be doing fairly good exegesis, and one or both of them could reach the wrong conclusion because of a mistake made somewhere along the way. Rather than accusing those who disagree with you of “forcing a view of Scripture on the text rather than drawing a view from the text,” I would suggest that we discuss our disagreements about the interpretation of particular texts.
Dave,
You wrote,“It amazes me how we deal with questions like this on blogs. We appeal to confessions, to great scholars and theologians of the past and often spend little time discussing the scriptures themselves.” To that I say Amen! Whenever I want an answer to a question like this, I always ask myself, “What does the Bible say?” Because the plain fact of the matter is that if the Bible addresses it, then we should be obedient to what the Bible says. The balance is that I also understand the Bible doesn’t address everything when it comes to “church” and how to do it (AC, padded pews, etc. for example).
One other point I think that is in order and often overlooked when looking to this local church/house church movement is the unwritten motto that they are trying to move back to how the early church was. The problem with this is we forget the reasons why they met in homes. They were not able to build huge buildings so that 3,000 of them could all meet together in one place at one time. Their homes were a natural place to meet together for corporate worship.
Along with this, the other problem with “getting back to how the early church was” is that they were not perfect. The church at Corinth had a lot of issues. The Thessalonians couldn’t resolve on their blogs whether they were amilllinialists, pretribulationists, or dispensationalists (poking fun at all of us here). But the early church wasn’t the ideal church and neither are churches today and neither will the churches of the future. The only ideal church is the one that will stand around the Lord’s Throne after the dust settles.
BT,
I don’t think Dave was calling you and eisegeter (don’t think that’s a real word
I think he was questioning how you applied the heurmenutic of this word in particular. Rather then looking at what the word means at each instance in Scripture, he was concerned that people will determine the meaning (in Revelation for example) and then blanket that meaning to all instances across the board. And I am sure since you seemed to be concerned that you were called an “eisegete” that is something you wish to avoid in your studies.
Brother BT,
When you wrote….
“The word “ekklesia” means more than “called-out ones.” It is true that “ek” (out of) and “kaleo” (to call) form roots of the word, but to say that “ekklesia” only means “called-out ones” is to fall into the root fallacy.”
I would go on to add that to fall into the trap of understanding “assembly only” is to diminish the foundation of the word as well. So there is a sequence…God calls His own out one at a time (ekklesia), we gather as those that are placed into His body collectively (ekklesia). The sequential foundation is each “one”, yet “called and commanded to gather” as He has purposed.
1 Corinthians 12:18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.
Blessings,
Chris
P.S.: I realize that some Greek words have a variety of shades of meaning. For instance, the word for “faith” (pistis) can mean saving faith, intellectual assent, faithfulness, and what we believe (the Baptist faith). In all these shades of meaning, however, there is a something they have in common (an acknowledgement of reliable truthfulness). I believe that the same thing is true of the word “ekklesia.” Whether we discuss the local churches, the generic/institutional use of the term, or the future universal church, the idea of an assembly is common to all uses of the word.
Chris, you used the word “body.” The body is an assembly of parts that at one time were all together. A human body can be splattered into component parts during an explosion, but the parts was assembled together at one time. Similarly, the word “ekklesia” refers to an assembly of parts that at some point are together in one assembly.
BT,
If the way I phrased this offended you, I apologize. I think what you might be doing is taking the predominant usage of the church and forcing it on every usage of the word.
That I disagree with the way you are approaching scripture is not an insult – it is simply the reason why we have disagreements.
If I understand our point of disagreement, you believe that the scriptural references to the church are always local, while I believe that they are only usually local, but sometimes city-wide and a few times universal.
Am I misunderstanding you?
BT,
As I mentioned in my comment, I believe that Carroll focuses too much on the term “ekklesia,” and not enough on the synonyms and metaphorical equivalents. I also agree with Chris that the etymology of “ekklesia” leads to both the “assembly” emphasis as well as the “called-out-ones” emphasis. A proper balance will take both into account.
Also, I think it is instructive to study the use of the Hebrew term “qahal” translated “ekklesia” in the Septuagint.
Another problem with the strict “ekklesia = physical assembly” view is that makes the church only the church whenever they are gathered together, yet the NT specifically says the church was also scattered. Or does secular Greek usage call an organization that assembles from time to time an “ekklesia” even during the time they are not assembled?
I would also ask you, to what “church” (if any) does Ephesians 2:19-22 refer? I believe this points to a universal church that is not merely eschatological, but rather in the process (present tense) of being built up. Actually, I believe the references to the church (using the word “ekklesia” or not) in the book of Ephesians all refer to the same thing.
Dave, you said,
“If I understand our point of disagreement, you believe that the scriptural references to the church are always local, while I believe that they are only usually local, but sometimes city-wide and a few times universal.”
Look at my comment #13:
“In the New Testament it referred to a future assembly in heaven (Ephesians 5:25-27), to the local churches, and to the church in an institutional or generic sense (Matthew 18:17). The word referred to a secular assembly in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41.”
Thus, when “ekklesia” occurs in Scripture, it can refer to the four things I referenced in comment #13. The idea of assembly is always present when the word is used.
That was the point I was making BT.
I think you are arguing on the basis of a definition of the word ekklesia that not everyone agrees with. That is what I referred to earlier when you didn’t like my phrasing.
I think you are forcing a single definition of the word on all occurrences of the term.
I think that I would agree with you, BT, if you allowed me to change one word.
You said, “the idea of assembly is always present.”
I would say “the idea of assembly is usually present”, or “often present.”
I would like to ask some of those who are out there who question the present reality of the universal church to interact on the following verses.
I am truly in a process of formulating my ideas, though I have some current convictions, I am working through some of this. So, I am interested in hearing how those who do not believe in the universal church deal with my view.
Honestly, I would rather you not quote what someone else said. I want to see other views.
*Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Am I right to assume that the answer here would be to refer this to future and eschatological church?
* Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.
I think that at this time, Judea, Galilee and Samaria encompassed pretty much the whole church. Here, Luke seems to refer to the whole church as “the church” not as “the churches.”
*I Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.
The apostles were over not a church, or even a city of churches, but over the entire “church of God.”
*Galatians 1:13 (and 1 Corinthians 15:9) For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.
Paul here talks of persecuting “the church of God.” What is that church (singular) if not the universal body of believers.
*All the references to the body of Christ speak of one whole.
Ephesians 1:22-23 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
1 Corinthians 12:13 We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body…
Does Christ have more than one body? Does he have a body at my church, and one across town at the other SBC church, and another at the Bible church (baptistic, but not in name) – not to mention the other churches with polity and practice with which we do not agree?
Doesn’t this clearly imply that there is ONE Body of Christ, not many? That, to me is the strongest basis for maintaining the universal church.
David R above referred to Ephesians 2:19-21, which seems to clearly refer to a universal body. Maybe someone could explain what that verse means, if not referring to a universal church.
BT,
While I think I don’t agree with you fully, I’m glad you are representing the view that you have here. This is because you have seemed to be consistent in your civility towards others in the times I have read your comments on the blogosphere.
You said “Chris, you used the word ‘body.’ The body is an assembly of parts that at one time were all together. A human body can be splattered into component parts during an explosion, but the parts was assembled together at one time. Similarly, the word “ekklesia” refers to an assembly of parts that at some point are together in one assembly.”
I think you might have that last sentence backwards when it comes to the meaning of the word Ekklesia.
Maybe the word “ekklesia” [in some contexts] refers to parts that have made up an assembly [at some point in the past] instead of an assembly of parts.
Think about it this way. A “scattered assembly of people” is a contradiction. However, a “scattered people who had made up an assembly” is not a contradiction. I think this latter definition fits better with the scattering in the book of acts.
God Bless,
Benji
BT,
Let me point out one more thing though. I do not believe the church was assembled when it was scattered in the book of Acts. The context reveals that the “church” was being persectued from house to house.
David Rogers, you said,
“As I mentioned in my comment, I believe that Carroll focuses too much on the term ‘ekklesia,’ and not enough on the synonyms and metaphorical equivalents. I also agree with Chris that the etymology of ‘ekklesia’ leads to both the ‘assembly’ emphasis as well as the ‘called-out-ones’ emphasis. A proper balance will take both into account.”
Let’s look at some metaphorical equivalents: household of God (Ephesians 2:19), flock (Acts 20:28), and body (1 Corinthians 12:12). Each member of a household is assembled together in one place with other members of the household at least once. If members live in separate homes and never assemble together, then we cannot say that they are of the same household. The same is true of a flock and a body. Carroll did not see “kingdom” as equivalent:
“My answer is that the kingdom and church on earth are not co-terminous. Kingdom, besides expressing a different idea, is much broader in signification than a particular assembly or than all the particular assemblies. The particular church is that executive institution or business body, within the kingdom, charged with official duties and responsibilities for the spread of the kingdom. In eternity and glory, church and kingdom may be co-terminous. Like the church, the kingdom in both time and eternity has both visible and spiritual aspects.”
You also said,
“Also, I think it is instructive to study the use of the Hebrew term ‘qahal’ translated ‘ekklesia’ in the Septuagint.”
Carroll did that in his second part of his “Ecclesia” lecture:
“As in the Septuagint ecclesia translates the Hebrew word qahal, does it not mean, ‘All Israel, whether assembled or unassembled?’ My reply is, I see not how this question could have risen in my mind from a personal, inductive study of all the Septuagint passages, since in every instance of the 114 cited the word means a gathering together—an assembly.”
You also said,
“Another problem with the strict ‘ekklesia = physical assembly’ view is that makes the church only the church whenever they are gathered together, yet the NT specifically says the church was also scattered. Or does secular Greek usage call an organization that assembles from time to time an ‘ekklesia’ even during the time they are not assembled?”
My impression is that the assembly was called an assembly even when it was not assembled:
“The elders had important judicial functions and were also consulted before any proposal was put before the Assembly of Spartan citizens. The Assembly (apella) consisted of all male citizens over thirty years of age. In theory, it was the Assembly who was the final authority but in practice the real function of the Assembly was to ratify decisions already decided upon by the elders and kings. . . . The Council convened the Assembly – an Assembly which, as of the year 450 B.C. – consisted of approximately 21,000 citizens. Of this number, perhaps 12-15000 were absent as they were serving in the army, navy or were simply away from Athens on business or otherwise. . . . The Assembly contained all those citizens who were not serving on the Council of 500 or who were not serving as public officials. The Assembly had forty regular meetings per year – there were four meetings in each 35 day period into which the Council’s year was divided. The first meeting discussed the corn supply, the qualifications of officials, questions of defense and ostracisms. The second meeting was open to any issue, while the third and fourth meetings were given over to debates on religion and foreign and secular affairs. Special meetings or emergency sessions could be called at any time. . . . The Council of Five Hundred and the Assembly met often and what they discussed focused on decidedly local issues. But they also discussed what we could only call democratic theory.”
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture6b.html
You also said,
“I would also ask you, to what ‘church’ (if any) does Ephesians 2:19-22 refer? I believe this points to a universal church that is not merely eschatological, but rather in the process (present tense) of being built up. Actually, I believe the references to the church (using the word ‘ekklesia’ or not) in the book of Ephesians all refer to the same thing.”
Carroll dealt with this passage:
“In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul says: ‘In whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.’ (Ephesians 2:21, 22, Revised Version) Here are two distinct affirmations: First – Each several building or particular assembly groweth into a holy temple of the Lord. That is, by itself it is a temple of the Lord. Second – What is true of each is true of the church at Ephesus, ‘In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.’ Just before this he had written of the church as an institution, or abstractly, in which Jew and Gentile are made into one. But the abstract becomes concrete in each several building. To the elders of this same particular church at Ephesus he said: ‘Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.’ (Acts 20:28). This flock, this church of the Lord, purchased by His own blood, is a particular assembly.”
Benji, you said,
“Maybe the word ‘ekklesia’ [in some contexts] refers to parts that have made up an assembly [at some point in the past] instead of an assembly of parts. Think about it this way. A ‘scattered assembly of people’ is a contradiction. However, a ‘scattered people who had made up an assembly’ is not a contradiction. I think this latter definition fits better with the scattering in the book of acts.”
Your point is well taken. When I was a member of Bellevue but living in South Korea, I was a non-resident member, part of a scattered people (non-resident members) who at one time had been part of the assembly in Memphis. I planned to return to Memphis and resume my part in the assembly there (Bellevue). If I had no plans to return, then the correct course of action would have been to transfer my membership to a church in South Korea. If I had committed adultery in South Korea, and had it become known to the IMB, the IMB would have sent me home, and Bellevue could have disciplined me upon my arrival home.
David Rogers, you said,
“As I mentioned in my comment, I believe that Carroll focuses too much on the term ‘ekklesia,’ and not enough on the synonyms and metaphorical equivalents. I also agree with Chris that the etymology of ‘ekklesia’ leads to both the ‘assembly’ emphasis as well as the ‘called-out-ones’ emphasis. A proper balance will take both into account.”
Let’s look at some metaphorical equivalents: household of God (Ephesians 2:19), flock (Acts 20:28), and body (1 Corinthians 12:12). Each member of a household is assembled together in one place with other members of the household at least once. If members live in separate homes and never assemble together, then we cannot say that they are of the same household. The same is true of a flock and a body. Carroll did not see “kingdom” as equivalent:
“My answer is that the kingdom and church on earth are not co-terminous. Kingdom, besides expressing a different idea, is much broader in signification than a particular assembly or than all the particular assemblies. The particular church is that executive institution or business body, within the kingdom, charged with official duties and responsibilities for the spread of the kingdom. In eternity and glory, church and kingdom may be co-terminous. Like the church, the kingdom in both time and eternity has both visible and spiritual aspects.”
You also said,
“Also, I think it is instructive to study the use of the Hebrew term ‘qahal’ translated ‘ekklesia’ in the Septuagint.”
Carroll did that in his second part of his “Ecclesia” lecture:
“As in the Septuagint ecclesia translates the Hebrew word qahal, does it not mean, ‘All Israel, whether assembled or unassembled?’ My reply is, I see not how this question could have risen in my mind from a personal, inductive study of all the Septuagint passages, since in every instance of the 114 cited the word means a gathering together—an assembly.”
You also said,
“Another problem with the strict ‘ekklesia = physical assembly’ view is that makes the church only the church whenever they are gathered together, yet the NT specifically says the church was also scattered. Or does secular Greek usage call an organization that assembles from time to time an ‘ekklesia’ even during the time they are not assembled?”
My impression is that the assembly was called an assembly even when it was not assembled:
“The elders had important judicial functions and were also consulted before any proposal was put before the Assembly of Spartan citizens. The Assembly (apella) consisted of all male citizens over thirty years of age. In theory, it was the Assembly who was the final authority but in practice the real function of the Assembly was to ratify decisions already decided upon by the elders and kings. . . . The Council convened the Assembly – an Assembly which, as of the year 450 B.C. – consisted of approximately 21,000 citizens. Of this number, perhaps 12-15000 were absent as they were serving in the army, navy or were simply away from Athens on business or otherwise. . . . The Assembly contained all those citizens who were not serving on the Council of 500 or who were not serving as public officials. The Assembly had forty regular meetings per year – there were four meetings in each 35 day period into which the Council’s year was divided. The first meeting discussed the corn supply, the qualifications of officials, questions of defense and ostracisms. The second meeting was open to any issue, while the third and fourth meetings were given over to debates on religion and foreign and secular affairs. Special meetings or emergency sessions could be called at any time. . . . The Council of Five Hundred and the Assembly met often and what they discussed focused on decidedly local issues. But they also discussed what we could only call democratic theory.”
You also said,
“I would also ask you, to what ‘church’ (if any) does Ephesians 2:19-22 refer? I believe this points to a universal church that is not merely eschatological, but rather in the process (present tense) of being built up. Actually, I believe the references to the church (using the word ‘ekklesia’ or not) in the book of Ephesians all refer to the same thing.”
Carroll dealt with this passage:
“In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul says: ‘In whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.’ (Ephesians 2:21, 22, Revised Version) Here are two distinct affirmations: First – Each several building or particular assembly groweth into a holy temple of the Lord. That is, by itself it is a temple of the Lord. Second – What is true of each is true of the church at Ephesus, ‘In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.’ Just before this he had written of the church as an institution, or abstractly, in which Jew and Gentile are made into one. But the abstract becomes concrete in each several building. To the elders of this same particular church at Ephesus he said: ‘Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.’ (Acts 20:28). This flock, this church of the Lord, purchased by His own blood, is a particular assembly.”
Benji, you also said,
“Let me point out one more thing though. I do not believe the church was assembled when it was scattered in the book of Acts. The context reveals that the ‘church’ was being persectued from house to house.”
Receptivity in Jerusalem waned. At one point (Acts 2:41) three thousand people could assemble in a presumably open area, hear the gospel, and be baptized. Later (Acts 8:1) things changed. Thus, in the early days the entire Jerusalem church could assemble in one place. Later, that was not possible, and many members were driven out of Jerusalem by the persecution.
BT,
Like I said, a man of civility:)
I might have to part ways with your view on the church universal. I am leaning towards the idea that if the word ekklesia basically means the called out ones [with possible different nuances in different contexts], then that leaves sufficient room open for the present church universal [that I think seems to fit the context in some passages pretty well].
Not all of my views are absolutely solidified on this topic. I’m glad Dave posted on this subject.
God Bless,
Benji
Thanks, Benji. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I believe that the basic meaning of “ekklesia” is “assembly,” not “called-out ones.”
Dave Miller,
Thanks for dealing with this topic. We can be mutually edified even when we disagree. “Iron sharpens iron.”
David Rogers, I mentioned the “apella” above. Here is some more clarification from Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Ancient Spartan assembly, corresponding to the ekklesia of other Greek states. Its monthly meetings, probably restricted to full citizens over 30, were presided over at first by the kings, later by ephors (magistrates). Not empowered to initiate proposals, the body considered subjects forwarded by the ephors or gerousia (council of elders). Only kings, elders, ephors, and perhaps other magistrates could debate, and voting was conducted by shouts. Foreign policy, including treaties and issues of peace and war, as well as questions of succession to the throne, were within the province of the apella. It also appointed military commanders, elected the elders and ephors, and voted on proposed changes in the laws.”
BT,
I think I’m talking out loud here:) Think about how even a local church sense of Ekklesia meaning “people who have assembled” instead of “assembly of people” seems to make people [i.e., the called out ones] the basic meaning of the word instead of assembly.
It seems to make “people” the basic meaning and “assembly” a secondary meaning I think.
BT,
I notice you keep referring time and time again to Carroll.
In order to respond point to point to all the details in Carroll’s article I will need to give it more time than I have right now. Perhaps later I will be able to go back and do that.
In the meantime, I will register my opinion that Carroll uses as his starting point the idea that “ekklesia” always means assembly, and then, goes back, at every step, trying to force Scripture to match us with that assumption. Sometimes this forces awkward interpretations, such as, for example, that Eph. 2:19-22 refers to local congregations. The English Revised Version and American Standard Version, from what I can tell, seem to be exceptions, on their rendering of “each several building.” Just about every other translation renders it “the whole building” or “all the building” or something like that.
I wish I had more time now to give to this, as it really does interest me. But I will have to leave that for later.
Benji, you said,
“I think I’m talking out loud here:) Think about how even a local church sense of Ekklesia meaning ‘people who have assembled’ instead of ‘assembly of people’ seems to make people [i.e., the called out ones] the basic meaning of the word instead of assembly. It seems to make ‘people’ the basic meaning and ‘assembly’ a secondary meaning I think.”
The people are key, but you cannot leave out their assembling together. The word “ekklesia” includes the idea of an assembly of people. That’s why the universal church will not exist until the end. We will be assembled with all the redeemed of all eras of history at that time, something that is not possible at this time.
Brother BT,
The ekklesia or called out ones are certainly molded into a body….what would the body be without the parts…right….
1 Corinthians 12:14-18 For the body is not one member, but many. (15) If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. (16) And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. (17) If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? (18) But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.
So both definitions apply (Trinitarian fashion)..yet we know that the body is not one member,…although members are placed, “each one of them”, in the body as God desired. What we really have is a model of sovereign appointment from before the foundation of the world.
Ephesians 1:3-4 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, (4) just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.
It is clear the church is the “many” that gather throughout the local communities in the world. It is God though, that places each individual into His body, (the church) as He pleases. I think that some would like to believe that the church is only created through water baptism or by voting at the end of the service,…yet God has a different plan. Our main difficulty is recognizing the “parts” because we have a tendency to judge according to the flesh and not according to Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:16)
Blessings,
Chris
David Rogers,
I’m sure this won’t be the last time we discuss this topic. This will be my last post for a while because I must leave soon to meet my wife for supper at Bellevue, and then I’ll drive out to my little mission church in Fayette County for prayer meeting.
Best wishes to all,
Mike (aka BT)
BT,
You are right about the quality of this discussion. I think (I know I’m biased) that some of the best discussion of issues takes place at SBC Impact.
I want to say that I agree with your perspective on these things as well. I think we can disagree and even challenge each other’s beliefs and grow from it.
To all,
I wonder if part of the problem some Baptists have had with the idea of a church universal is that it is too abstract for them. In other words, a local church looks concrete to them and so in their minds “it’s real” whereas a church universal is not to them.
Any thoughts on this idea?
Benji,
I think part of the problem is that people have sometimes used the idea of the “invisible church” as an excuse to not be active in and committed to a local congregation. As happens many times, the pendulum swing reaction sometimes causes the cure to be worse than the sickness.
Great discussion going on. If there are more comments or questions for me, it will be later tonight before I can deal with them. I hate it when ministry intrudes on blogging.
Some of you keep talking about MEMBERSHIP. Where is their mention of Membership?? We by the Holy Spirit are Members of the Body of Christ and His One True Church.
Wayne
Wayne, I adressed your concern in comment #14:
(Beginning of comment) Matthew 18:17 – “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (NASB)
“Tell” in the verse is an aorist imperative active form. He was clearly addressing discipline in a local church context, not in a universal church context. In order to discipline members, the members must be known. Thus, there should be no “open membership” in local churches. Clearly, Jesus was not talking about the universal church in 18:17. (End of comment)
I assume that you believe in church discipline. If a member of the universal church in Brazil commits adultery, I probably will not hear about it unless he is a celebrity, and of course I can do nothing about it unless he moves to my area and comes to my church. Church discipline is a local church matter. Each local church is responsible for the discipline of those Christians who have identified themselves with that particular local church. The local church is not responsible for following the procedure outlined in Matthew 18 for people outside the local church. Thus, church membership is strongly implied by the necessity of local church discipline.
P.S.: A case of majority rule in a case of local church discipline is found in 2 Corinthians 2:6 — “Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority.” (NASB)
David Garland commented on this verse:
“The majority rules. . . . Paul asserts that the punishment has been sufficient, and it is now fitting that they forgive and restore the individual.”
David Garland, “2 Corinthians,” vol. 29 in the New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 126-127.
BT / Mike
Some of us have House Church, the same as are referred to in the Bible.
We use all of Scripture, including holding all Brother and Sister Accountable according to God’s Word. Discipline is also carried out by use of the Word.
There are no Memberships as you are trying to use for the Body of Christ of which we are Members of by Regeneration.
Wayne
Wayne, I helped start a house church in South Korea. House churches are biblical churches. Biblical churches perform discipline on their members, not on non-members. Thus, if you have a biblical church, you’ve got members.
BT,
Do you think Matthew 18:15-17 only applies when all parties are members of the same local church? What happens in the case when the “brother that sins against you” happens to be a member of another local church?
David, such a situation is still a matter of local church discipline. If I (the offended party) am a member of a different church than that of the offender, I can inform a leader at the offender’s church, and then the responsibility lies with that church to carry out the disciplinary procedure outlined in Matthew 18:15-17. The same thing applies to a non-Christian outside the church who is offended. If a member of a local church commits adultery with a non-Christian, the non-Christian can inform the offender’s church, and then the church can investigate and take action.
BT,
Yes, pragmatically speaking, I suppose something like this would need to take place. But what I am getting at is questions like the following: Do I, as the offended party, still remain as part of disciplinary process? Is it still my responsibility to go to the offender? When I bring someone along with me, on the second confrontation, must it be someone from the offender’s local church? Also, what responsibility do local churches have, if any, to respect the disciplinary decisions of other local churches? What if the offender’s local church doesn’t want to listen to me?
Something that I was always taught about the universal, invisible Church; and the local, visible Church was that the universal, invisible Church is always seen in a local, visible Church. While there is a universal, visible Church out there…all the called out ones…this should be seen in a local, visible assembly.
And, if someone does not belong to a local, visible assembly, then when they get sick and are in the hospital; let them call on the invisible Pastor to come and visit them.
David
that phrase should read…”universal, invisible Church.”
BTW, BT, I had a non-Christian who came to me and complained about one of my members committing adultery with his mother in law, one time. I investigated it. I talked to the man. We dealt with it. I wonder who the lost man could’ve gone to if there’s just some fuzzy, invisible, universal Church out there? I guess he would’ve had to gone to Benny Hinn.
David
David, you have asked some good questions. I don’t pretend to have all the answers about church discipline, but I’ll try to respond:
You asked,
“Do I, as the offended party, still remain as part of disciplinary process?”
My answer: The local church is responsible for the investigation and discipline, but I am sure that people from the church would interview you as part of their investigation. In that sense, you would be part of the process.
You also asked,
“Is it still my responsibility to go to the offender?”
My answer: The responsibility lies with the offender’s church. Whether you confront the offender yourself depends on the offense and whether the Lord is leading you to confront the offender.
You also asked,
“When I bring someone along with me, on the second confrontation, must it be someone from the offender’s local church?”
My answer: According to Matthew 18:15-17, if the offender fails to repent after the first visit, “two or three witnesses” must be taken. This second step is related to Deuteronomy 19:15: “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed ; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.” The question of whether or not you are included among the witnesses is determined by the local church. The local church is performing the procedure, and the local church decides (through whomever it has designated to perform the early stages of the procedure) whom it will bring as witnesses.
You also asked,
“Also, what responsibility do local churches have, if any, to respect the disciplinary decisions of other local churches?”
My answer: The local church must take such decisions into consideration before it accepts such offenders as members from other churches where the offense occurred. What was the nature of the offense? Has the offender repented and made restitution? Such questions should be answered before the offenders are accepted as members. It gives “transfer by letter” a whole new meaning when the offender’s former church sends a bad recommendation.
You asked,
“What if the offender’s local church doesn’t want to listen to me?”
My answer: Your association can disfellowship the local church which refuses to discipline the errant member.
Brother BT,
David Garland is one of “many” to comment on this phrase ἀπὸ τῶν πλείονων apo tōn pleionōn….where he implies that it is by “majority rule”. A better rendering is for “many”, certainly explaining that the church brings discipline before the entire body in this case. It would be a stretch of some proportion to interject western democratic thought into this Greek text. So David seems to be begging for a new twist to the “many”.
That would be like me saying David Garland is one of the “majority” of commentators that have interpreted this properly. As if the theologians all lined up and had a vote. This is not the concept of the Greek structure, nor is it what the theologians would do. It is not inconceivable though that “many” commentators would agree with David.
Blessings,
Chris
BT,
All of this seems to me to be logical implications of the “local church pre-eminence” system advocated by Carroll and others. Yet, I find very little of it explicitly taught in Scripture. The passage itself says nothing about asking who (among the offender, offended, witnesses, elders, members, etc.) belongs to one congregation or the other. The whole concept of even asking those questions seems to me to be imported into the passage on the basis of previous assumptions.
I am not saying, however, that there are not situations in our everyday church life in which we must put 2 and 2 together and come up with some logical implications from principles in Scripture regarding how to deal with them. However, I think the actual principles themselves should be treated as more binding, and the logical implications a bit more flexible.
Brother BT,
I believe it is easy to miss the spirit of church discipline in our western / democratically understood culture. As I mentioned David’s misuse of “majority” (as if it means the assembly had a secret ballot), church discipline is not regulated by autonomous systems as understood in our culture. So autonomy, when understood as a means to separate, carries with it the wrong motive.
Let me try to explain,…. As Christ was in the process of explaining to His disciples about the church and how it loves one another (Matthew 18)….His thought and teaching was to instruct the disciples giving a universal principle.. In fact, the disciples, of which Paul is a member, had ministries throughout the city, region and world (as they understood the furthest reaches of evangelism). Discipline applied throughout the churches operated under this universal understanding as Christ taught. So discipline, when taught rightly to those that gather locally, will be seen universal.
Allow me to illustrate,…..
If one of our church who gathers with us on Sunday and is committed to the work of the assembly in Hermitage is offended (by “whatever” sin) by someone that gathers and is committed with your assembly in Memphis and rightly confronts him/her on the situation and the brother/sister repents, then the one that has confronted has won his/her brother or sister.
But, if there is no repentance (fast-forwarding through prayer, patience, time) it may be required that a second person accompany the offended to try and win over the brother/sister.
Here’s the tough part for wrongly applied and unbiblical autonomy. The bible demands and requires that it (the problem) be brought before the church at some point of non-repentance, and the Pastor/Elder in Memphis is obligated to work through the situation even without contacting the Pastor/Elder from the church in Hermitage (even though both Pastors will have some idea of what is happening, but it is not required, since both Pastors/Elders will treat the body of Christ the same.) Working through the issue is for the benefit and love of the person that is committed in fellowship in Memphis. The Hermitage person is simply helping restore a brother or sister in the body, the church at another local area.
Unfortunately, what typically occurs, and I have heard it from many Baptist Pastors, especially in the same city or region…. is something that resembles “you take care of your folks and I’ll take care of mine”. That statement or something more political or polite is an example of the ignorance and pride put forth by many Pastors throughout the SBC illustrating the lack of knowledge and wisdom to conduct church discipline.
Working a solution through “Associations”, and Dis-Fellowshipping assemblies, etc. is simply not biblical. When Pastor/Elders begin to understand the body of Christ in the universal principle as set before the disciples by Christ, then they will begin to operate in a scriptural manner with respect to discipline and the health of their local assembly.
Blessings,
Chris
Well, I guess it’s time for a biblical word study in relation to 2 Corinthians 2:6. The key word in the verse is “pleionon.” The context is church discipline. The late A. T. Robertson said the word in the verse refers to “the majority.” Marvin Vincent said it refers to “the many: the majority of the Church.” Notice the comment by the Presbyterian Albert Barnes on the verse:
“It is evident that the whole church was concerned in the administration of the act of discipline; as the words “of many” (apo ton pleionon) are not applicable either to a single bishop, or a single minister, or a presbytery, or a bench of elders: nor can they be so regarded, except by a forced and unnatural construction. Paul had directed it to be done by the assembled church 1Co 5:4, and this phrase shows that they had followed his instructions. Locke supposes that the phrase means, ‘by the majority’; Macknight renders it, ‘by the greater number’; Bloomfield supposes that it means that the ‘punishment was carried into effect by all.’ Doddridge paraphrases it, ‘by the whole body of your society.’ The expression proves beyond a doubt that the whole body of the society was concerned in the act of the excommunication, and that is a proper way of administering discipline. Whether it proves, however, that that is the mode which is to be observed in all instances, may admit of a doubt, as the example of the early churches, in a particular case, does not prove that that mode has the force of a binding rule on all.”
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commented on the verse: “Inflicted of many — rather, “by the majority” (the more part of you). Not by an individual priest, as in the Church of Rome, nor by the bishops and clergy alone, but by the whole body of the Church.”
John Gill also commented on the verse: “Was inflicted by many; not by the pastor only, or by the elders or more eminent persons in the church, but by the multitude, by the whole congregation, at least υπο των πλειονων, ‘by the more’; the greater, or major part; and not by one, or a few only: in inflicting this punishment, or laying on this censure in the public manner they did, they were certainly right, and to be commended; but inasmuch as there appeared signs of true repentance, it was sufficient, it had answered the purpose for which it was inflicted, and therefore it was high time to remove it: from whence we learn, that in case of gross enormities, there ought to be a public excommunication; and that this is to be done by the vote, and with the consent of the whole church, or the major part of it; and that in process of time, when the person thus dealt with has given the church satisfaction as to the truth and genuineness of his repentance, the censure ought to be taken off and he be cordially received into the communion of the church again.”
The “majority” that is spoken of in this verse does not refer to the majority of people in the universal church; rather, it refers to the majority of people in the local church. Church discipline is a function of the local church. If a local church refuses to perform its biblical role in church discipline, then it is in rebellion against God. Local churches are autonomous, and associations cannot force them to do anything. The association, however, is also autonomous, and it can choose with whom it will cooperate in its work. The same thing is true for state conventions and the national convention.
Chris, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that your church has elder rule and the congregation does not vote on anything. As I have said in the past, one problem with that system occurs when a group of elders becomes corrupt. If the members of the congregation have no opportunity to vote, then they have no other option but to leave the church. They cannot vote out the corrupt elders. This problem is serious. I believe that the congregation should be able to vote on serious matters. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message states, “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” I assume that you disagree with that portion of our confession of faith. I agree with our confession of faith. I doubt that we will change each others’ minds, and I doubt this will be the last time we discuss this issue.
Blessings to you!
Dave,
Thanks for this post and your well balanced look at all of what God’s Word says.
I just received an e-mail of what is happening in most of our Churches.
This is an excellent White Paper that all should read. I would like to see a Post by one of You SBC IMPACT authors in the near further.
Announcing from BaptistTheology.org
White Paper 29
Is There a Church within Your Church?
By Mr. Gary Ledbetter
http://www.BaptistTheology.org
BaptistTheology.org is a ministry of the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Wayne
Administrator of SBC IMPACT
Why is my comment awaiting moderation?
Wayne
It’s approved now, Wayne. Not sure what caused it to go to moderation.
John,
It may be the hyper-links that throw it to moderation.
-Chris
Brother BT,
Just a slight correction, but an important one.
Our church is Elder led, which is the biblical model easily seen by Paul to Timothy and Titus, and Christ and His Apostles. At the same time…we also have Elders who “rule” well. In other words congregations that are Elder led and served, must have Elders that rule well. Ruling well points back to the servant, not to those being served. Our congregation does not have any secret ballots, nor do we have a need to have ballots at all. We all discuss, consider and affirm everything in the church as a body. In fact, every year the Elders are affirmed by the congregation formally, yet are held accountable daily as the scripture mandates. If an Elder demonstrates that He is unqualified, he is removed as a Leader. Its a tough line of work.
What will not happen in our congregation is the opportunity for a section of the church to rise up and fire an Elder, because they don’t think he is doing enough, or if baptism are down and the church is not growing as they see fit. The immature believers do not “rule well” because they are not qualified to rule or lead the church, at least according to scripture, they are not commanded to “rule” at all.
Our congregation is involved on all matters though, not just the “important ones” and they are always welcome to voice or have input on a daily basis, never waiting for a monthly business meeting.
So, maybe the biblical model is good after all. It is not democratic (i.e. secret ballots, waiting for monthly meetings, the forming of secret societies to overthrow the status quo, allowing the immature to rule the church, etc.) Churches that operate on entirely westernized democratic processes are building on sandy soil and are not biblically formed….yet the process is familiar and popular to Americans and is seems pragmatic.
By the way…the line “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.”…. is about as an ambiguous a statement as one can find. It is no great wonder why churches get into so much trouble when they try to form around a democracy (since it is not even in scripture). Democratic processes are designed to protect consensus mediocrity.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Wayne,
I read the article you referenced above.
The problem that Gary addresses really has more to do with Leadership than it has to do with church discipline. A plurality of Godly Leadership should be the aim and goal of all the churches. God has promised, commanded and provided for this Leadership to exist in the church. We simply must be willing to obey. The article really gives the reader a good view of “left field” which is common to most, when the “right field” (Leadership) is in disarray. We are on the same playing field, but focusing on the wrong part of the field.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Your insight and understanding of what God’s Word says is such a Blessing and Uplifting. One must Lead like Jesus Lead as a Servant of Christ.
Wayne
Chris, you said,
“Our congregation does not have any secret ballots, nor do we have a need to have ballots at all. . . . Every year the Elders are affirmed by the congregation formally. . . . What will not happen in our congregation is the opportunity for a section of the church to rise up and fire an Elder.”
I assume that the annual formal vote of affirmation for the elders is made either by raised hands or voice. Is there any opportunity for a “no” vote during the annual affirmation? When you say that a section of the church cannot fire an elder, do you mean that even a majority of members cannot fire an elder or elders?
You said,
“The immature believers do not ‘rule well’ because they are not qualified to rule or lead the church, at least according to scripture, they are not commanded to ‘rule’ at all. Our congregation is involved on all matters though, not just the ‘important ones’ and they are always welcome to voice or have input on a daily basis, never waiting for a monthly business meeting.”
To clarify this statement, are you saying that immature believers can give input to elders but are not qualified to vote on major issues except for the yearly affirmation of the elders?
You said,
“By the way…the line ‘Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.’…. is about as an ambiguous a statement as one can find. It is no great wonder why churches get into so much trouble when they try to form around a democracy (since it is not even in scripture). Democratic processes are designed to protect consensus mediocrity.”
I think both of us agree that churches should operate under the Lordship of Christ. Jesus should be the ultimate ruler of each local church. The question, however, is whether the elder(s) or the congregation has the final say in deciding what God’s will is for the church in regard to important matters such as buying land, building a building, calling a pastor/elder/overseer, etc. My impression is that you believe that the elders should have the final say in determining God’s will for the local church. I believe that the congregation should have the final say in determining God’s will for the local church, and thus I believe that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement about democratic processes is correct. I believe that the leadership of elder(s) is certainly important in influencing the congregation in a particular direction, but the congregation can overrule the elder(s). The congregation delegates authority to the elder(s), but the congregation can take that authority away from the elder(s) and fire him/them.
You said,
“We also have Elders who ‘rule’ well.”
You seemed to reference 1 Timothy 5:17 several times in your post. Let’s look at that verse:
“The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” (NASB)
Does this verse indicate that elders rather than the members of the congregation have the final say in determining God’s will for the church? I think not. As I indicated earlier, the congregation has delegated authority to the elder(s), but it can take that authority away from him/them and overrule him/them. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The congregation has the authority to remove corrupt elders by majority vote. My earlier mention of the majority in 2 Corinthians 2:6 relates to Paul’s statement to the church in 1 Corinthians 5:13 as he quoted an Old Testament passage:
“But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” (NASB)
The majority ruled, and the offender was disciplined. Thomas Lea commented on 1 Timothy 5:17:
“The expression ‘direct the affairs of the church’ refers to the act of giving leadership and supervision to church ministries. The usage does not suggest an aggressive, dictatorial style of leadership (cf. ‘rule,’ KJV). Paul’s previous use of the term in describing the activities of a firm but gracious father in 3:4, 12 (‘manage’) shows that he had more than the mere exercise of authority in mind.”
Lea, “1, 2 Timothy,” in vol. 34 of The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 155.
I think that the comparison of the elder’s servant leadership with that of the father in the home is very appropriate. When the father becomes corrupt, his wife can divorce him. When he commands the family members to do something that clearly and seriously violates God’s moral principles, the family members should not obey him. The father, like the elder, can be removed from his place of spiritual authority.
P.S.: One more thought: When the wife takes her wedding vows, that “vote” is analagous to a congregation voting to call an elder/pastor/overseer. She is voting for his servant leadership not only for herself but also for the children which will come out of her body. If she has a biblical reason for divorcing him, she in effect votes him out of his position of leadership, and the children usually leave the home with her. Similarly, the congregation (including the immature spiritual children) can remove a corrupt elder or elders from leadership.
Brother BT,
It is unfortunate that you have not had the pleasure of working in an Elder led church that is functioning biblically. You have brought up some classic fear tactics brought forward against what some call “Elder Rule”..(and rightfully so because biblical Elder or Plurality of Elders is seldom practiced these days in the SBC and it is typically misunderstood or mislabeled when the “corrupt Elder” is brought up.)..so, I will try to address these fears just after dinner. I always enjoy our dialogue.
Thank you for bringing these things forward. They need to be discussed because there is a significant real problem in the churches with Leadership and/or the lack thereof.
Blessings,
Chris
Actually, I served in a megachurch that transitioned to an elder-led church when I was a youth minister right out of seminary (1983-1986). The church designated the former deacons as elders. Also designated as elders were the senior pastor, the minister of education, the minister of music, and the minister of discipleship/administration. I served under the authority of the minister of education. I was an ordained minister, but I did not quite fit in the system. They called me a deacon even though I was not an ordained deacon. Any non-elder who served in a leadership capacity was designated as a deacon or deaconess, but none of them were ordained.
Brother BT,
I’ll try to outline just the briefest biblical format for Leaders in the church as I answer the points you have made in your previous post.
1. Initially, God has designed to church to have Elders (plural) and for good reason as Paul explains to Timothy the basis of ministry….
1 Timothy 2:8 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.
2. God has provided Spirit gifted men to lead the church…this is the design and it is the design to be pursued by those obedient to the Word of God. A plurality of Leaders is one of the primary discipleship goals of any church planter, and is an ongoing focus for the current Leadership serving in any church body or if not pursued the Leader will be disobedient to the Word of God.
Ephesians 4:1-3 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, (2) with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, (3) being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Ephesians 4:11-16 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, (12) for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; (13) until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (14) As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; (15) but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, (16) from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
Titus 1:5-6 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, (6) namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
BT ….you said… “I assume that the annual formal vote of affirmation for the elders is made either by raised hands or voice. Is there any opportunity for a “no” vote during the annual affirmation? When you say that a section of the church cannot fire an elder, do you mean that even a majority of members cannot fire an elder or elders?”
First of all, there is not a reason for a “no” vote….because months prior to the affirmation, if there is any misunderstanding or problems that a member has with an Elder, it is the responsibility of that individual to (a) make the Elder aware of the issue and become convinced by the Elder that everything is biblical and they are in mutual agreement, or (b) if a mutual agreement cannot be met, then there will be discipline of the Elder and/or member based upon working through Matthew 18. If the Elder is qualified he is able to edify the body and is required to do so.
So then… that leads to a Yes, in that a “majority” of members should never be able to fire or dismiss an Elder. In fact, it will be only two members or more that will actually bring accusation against him. So as few as two may bring testimony to the sin of the Elder (which could lead to his disqualification). When corruption or sin is found out, there are no votes involved, his sin is brought before the church and he is immediately no longer in Leadership….so that all in the church will fearful of sinning.
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
BT, you said “To clarify this statement, are you saying that immature believers can give input to elders but are not qualified to vote on major issues except for the yearly affirmation of the elders?
All members, including Elders are able to give input, discuss, and eventually affirm what is being done in the church. Elders simply serve and lead, they do not dictate. They “rule well” which is the opposite of “dictate”. I would say we are more congregational than those that claim to be congregational, since we end up with agreement and not split decisions, where all affirm. It is not easy, it takes great patience, but what a better place to practice patience than in the midst of the church family.
The affirmation of Elders is simply a public demonstration that all the members with any grievance have gone to the Elder/Elders in question and have worked through any misgivings. This is what takes several months… and really is an ongoing manner of qualification for the Elder. No Elder should serve unless he remains qualified! That is extremely important in the life of the church. There is no grace period for an Elder when it comes to Leadership.
BT, you said “Does this verse indicate that elders rather than the members of the congregation have the final say in determining God’s will for the church? I think not. As I indicated earlier, the congregation has delegated authority to the elder(s), but it can take that authority away from him/them and overrule him/them. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The congregation has the authority to remove corrupt elders by majority vote. My earlier mention of the majority in 2 Corinthians 2:6 relates to Paul’s statement to the church in 1 Corinthians 5:13 as he quoted an Old Testament passage:
This is kind of the same statement you made in the previous paragraph as well…so I’ll combine the answer. For one thing,… I have not advocated that the congregation is not involved as much as the Elder is involved. You have brought forward the “corrupt” Elder as the only option….when in actuality, the “corrupt Elder” has already been brought before the church and removed, or disciplined. In our case the church, of which the Elders are members as well simply follow scripture. There have been cases where immorality leaves the church Leaderless, especially if you have only “one” guy that was qualified to lead the church. That is why God has commanded and made provision for the plurality of “qualified” Leaders for His congregation at the local level. The key is “qualified” not “seminarified” as some have been led to equate.
In your experience of the 80’s, …simply promoting deacons to elders is not what biblical Leadership is and can lead to a big mess. Neither is John Calvin’s mode of hiring Elders…as elected by the city council. John C. has some wonderful things to say about soteriology, but he deposited an egg when it comes to ecclesiology.
Biblical Elders (plural for the benefit of the entire congregation) are not something disputed in scripture, these men of God are commanded because it is God’s design for a healthy church that will lift holy hands to God. Any Pastor/Elder that is not actively seeking these called out men in their congregations is not being obedient to God and what he has obviously designed for His church. It is not easy, and must be done with great vigilance, but it is commanded and necessary and does not thwart the participation of all the congregation.
Sorry for the length on this one my brother,
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, thanks for your clarification. You emphasized having a plurality of elders. I have no problem with that concept. In the case of a very small local church, however, I don’t think the Bible prohibits that church having one elder/pastor/overseer.
You said, “A ‘majority’ of members should never be able to fire or dismiss an Elder.” This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. If only one of your elders is corrupted, presumably the other elders will provide good leadership to the church, and the church will properly discipline the erring elder. On the other hand, if the entire group of elders is corrupted at the same time (e.g., all are complicit in covering up a scandal), you have a problem with no solution (unless God supernaturally removes them from their leadership positions by taking them home early, etc.). My impression is that the majority of members in your congregation has no opportunity in your system to vote to remove the whole group.
By the way, a good resource for the discussion on elders is Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman, editors (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004). In the book, there are discussions by Danny Akin on the single-elder-led church, by Robert Reymond on the Presbytery-led church, by James Leo Garrett on the congregation-led church, by Paul Zahl on the bishop-led church, and by James White on the plural-elder-led church.
Brother BT,
Thank you for having patience with me as well…and for looking past some of the typographical errors in my last post.
I appreciate you allowing me to disagree on a few things…
The majority firing is simply not biblical because it never does take a majority,…only “two individuals” according to scripture. So this “majority” thing is simply a pragmatic result of western culture, and probably is an emotional outlet for most folks (but scripture holds to a higher standard than a majority). Just because we humans are stubborn and disobedient and tend to want to do things pragmatically does not dismiss us from following the commands of Christ.
You are getting closer to why God set up the church being led by Elders…. When you said…. “If only one of your elders is corrupted, presumably the other elders will provide good leadership to the church, and the church will properly discipline the erring elder.” For instance, many Elders are in “name only” and are not qualified. The key to order in the church is to have “qualified Elders”. This has escaped the SBC for some time. I hope the churches return to being obedient to appointing “qualified Elders”. Without the standard, you certainly will have “corruption” as the fall guy and then revert back to a single man leading with the majority keeping Him in line (that model is not found in scripture).
Thanks for the references as well…I’ve had the pleasure of reading of few of them.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I haven’t been involved in your discussion with BT, but have followed it with interest. Good template for theological discussion.
Now that the comment stream has died, I want to advance a theory I have.
Here it is, and when I write this, I risk arrest and trial by the Baptist Police: I think there are certain characteristics of godly leadership within the church, but I am not sure that the Bible absolutely spells out a single form of government that is “biblical.”
What is biblically clear are a few truths:
1) Jesus christ is the head of the church. It is not to be ruled by a pastor, a group of elders, a bishop or a majority. It is to be ruled by Christ. the role of leadership is to seek the will of God and the mind of Christ. Whatever form of government a church has, it is only going to work if the people in authority actively seek to be undershepherds, working under the Lordship of Jesus christ.
2) Christian leadership is character-based, not office-based or even talent-based. I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, as well as Acts 6 make this clear. Whatever form of government you use, it will only work if you have spirit-filled men leading as servants, seeking to bless their people by leading them to live under the Lordship of Christ.
In other words, I think far too much emphasis is put on HOW as church is to be structured rather than how those who lead the church should behave.
I have seen people advocating elder-rule in churches as if is it THE single biblical form and assert that if we would only institute elder rule, our churches would suddenly operate in the power of God.
Frankly, I think that multiple elders is probably the closest to a biblical system. But some of the most messed up churches I have seen have been elder-ruled. If the elders are not walking in the fulness of the Spirt, the structure won’t work.
3) the principles of leadership I see in scripture seem to indicate that an elder-led system of government might be the best – all things being equal. By elder-led, I mean that the elders attempt to find the will of God and the mind of Christ and lead the church accordingly, and that they actively seek the assent and consent of the church body – sort of a elder rule where the elders are accountable to the church.
But, I still think the main thing in scripture is the character, maturity and behavior of the leadership, not their organizational structure.
Dave and Chris,
AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN
Wayne
A hybrid form of government exists in many (perhaps most) mid-size and larger SBC churches; e.g., the senior pastor, minister of music, minister of education, youth minister, and administrative pastor may all be ordained ministers, thoroughly examined by an ordination council to see if they meet the biblical qualifications for the office of pastor/elder/overseer. They form a plurality of elders even if they are not designated as “elders.” They lead the church, and thus it can be said that such a church is elder-led. When huge decisions are made such as buying land, building buildings, calling new pastors, etc., the plurality of elders lead/influence the church in a particular direction, but the final decision is made by the church. Thus, this church is a hybrid of elder-led and congregation-led. To draw an analogy with government, it is a republic, not a pure democracy. The leaders are not benevolent dictators with total authority; rather, the congregation delegates to them whatever authority they have, and the congregation can remove them from their places of authority if they abuse their positions of leadership.
P.S.: I’ve noticed that the form of government sometimes depends on the length of the senior pastor’s tenure, especially in a small church. Small churches are more likely to be 100% congregation-led, especially early in the senior pastor’s tenure. After he’s been there a long time, however, more and more decisions are delegated to him as he develops trust and influence. If he stays as long as 30 years, the small congregation may transition from a congregation-led to a single-elder-led system of government. In a small congregation, each member can make his voice heard during a monthly business meeting, and every check may be listed on the financial report. In a megachurch, however, there are many layers of administration and decision-making bodies such as committees. Thus, in a megachurch, a member may find it impossible to keep track of everything that is going on at the church, and such churches are less likely to have a pure congregation-led form of government.
Brother Dave,
I was away from blogland for the afternoon and evening and just saw your post. You have made an excellent point in #2 of your post, which is really based in good exegesis when you said…..
“Christian leadership is character-based, not office-based or even talent-based. I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, as well as Acts 6 make this clear. Whatever form of government you use, it will only work if you have spirit-filled men leading as servants, seeking to bless their people by leading them to live under the Lordship of Christ.”
The wisdom that you have penned here is where most SBC congregations are led in error when specifically addressing leaders. There really is no need for a hybrid between “Elder led” and “Congregational” because the biblical model operates with all the individuals that make up the congregation, where God has called Elders to lead by application of the Spirit and Deacons to serve by application of the Spirit, and teachers to teach by application of the Spirit, so on, etc. The entire congregation is affirming not by majority, but through the Word of God by application of the Holy Spirit so there “is” unity in the bond of peace.
You have rightly said, that Leadership in the church is “not office-based”. That is biblical accurate when you explore the Greek structure of 1 Timothy 3:1…..
1Timothy 3:1 Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ.
The term for office is assumed and inserted in the English translation to give the reader a sense of higher appeal, but the insertion is not necessary to gain the meaning and can be confusing to some. For instance, since God has provided Elders for His church, Paul is communicating to Timothy that …. “if any man aspires to overseer it is a fine work he desires” (a more literal translation). God has provide this aspiration or calling to “many” men for the building up of the church through the application of the Holy Spirit. What churches seem to miss is that God has told the church to pursue in the plural,…meaning God provides this for the church whether small or large and is the reason that Paul teaches Timothy and Titus to be on the look for these men, because it is God that has provided them. Unfortunately, we have overseers (those Timothy’s and Titus’s of today) that do not look, ….they are satisfied that they are the “one” to singularly lead a congregation. This is simply missing the point of Paul’s teaching.
In another way…large congregations of several hundred or even thousands tend to move in the direction having a corporate ministry staff of several (or few) Pastors, with a host of ministers (not necessarily “qualified” Pastor/Elders) underneath to run the ministries or they may even try to promote their deacons to Elder (like BT mentioned earlier), which is certainly not what God has prescribed through the Apostles. Even though large Congregations of say 1000 members should have 20-30 or more Pastor/Elders in order to edify the flock, they are typically pragmatically satisfied at organizing around a corporate structure for control, and promoting unqualified individuals to lead. That type of structure eventually leads to a mess of some proportion, and then the next wave of staff comes through and they do it again. That is simply not biblical.
Dave,…you have hit on the initial key to understanding Elders as Paul is clearly teaching to Timothy and Titus….where qualification is not an office.
Blessings,
Chris
Dave, sorry the Greek got a little garbled as it came through….I was referencing the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament at 3:1
Blessing,
Chris
On that point, we agree. But, here’s my question – how certain are you that there is one biblically-clear form of church polity?
Couldn’t churches use different forms of polity and still operate biblically?
One church uses elder-leadership.
Another is more strictly congregational.
Another gives elder authority to a single man – the pastor.
If the leaders of all these churces are walking in the fulness of the Spirit, operating for the glory of God and seeking the divine agenda for the church, is any of them inherently unbibilcal?
Brother Dave,
That is really the toughest question. We all know that the church is formed and established by Christ to function as He has designed. It does seem that the Apostles teach that the relationships of God’s people within this formation are dependent upon each other….in order to maintain the already established “unity” that they are simply called to preserve.
Ephesians 4:1-3 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, (2) with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, (3) being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
For instance, Paul recognizing his slavery to God, is imploring those at Ephesus to walk worthy of “the calling with which you have been called”…. which gives us a great view of the operation of the church. I don’t really see options for choosing a polity that suites my flavor or my eye the best…(which is kind of what we have today).
The scriptures seem to live out the fact that God has provided leaders, servants, teachers, etc. for the benefit of what is already formed by Christ. We simply function to what is already established instead of trying to build another boat that seems to suite us best and name them Elder Ruled, or Congregational Ruled, or Whatever Ruled.
To put it another way,…We might ask…. How well do we recognize the church that God “has” established? I would say it is recognized only to the extent that we have right teaching of the Word of God. That is why qualified leadership is essentially important to the health of any congregation and is something that Paul encourages Timothy and Titus to pay close attention and actively facilitate qualified leaders. John, the Son of Zebedee must have ran into the same issues in the churches of Asia, resulting in 1,2,3 John just before the turn of the first century.
I’m not trying to say to that the single Pastor is “deliberately” trying to walk outside the will of God. I am trying to say, that I know He has been taught within the SBC (majority of seminaries) that being “single” is the norm, when it has never been and He is suffering for striving in that ignorance. The SBC and any other group will benefit greatly by recognizing the scriptural norm of multiple “qualified” leaders appointed within their flock. It is not only the biblical norm, it is by Apostolic command.
Since this command has not been followed, it is difficult to implement, especially by men that are currently working diligently as the single Pastor and have been trained/convinced to disregard the command.
Blessings,
Chris
I think we all have two churches we are a part of – the church as we believe it ought to be, and the imperfect church that is.
Here’s where the rubber hits the road for me. I preach pretty forcefully on living out the fruit of the Spirit and walking obediently under the Lordship of Christ.
But I have never made a huge deal out of church structure. My first pastorate was Deacon ruled and dysfunctional. In my last two churches, I have probably been in a sole elder position. I have had great deacons who really functioned as an advisors and perhaps more like elders than deacons. I tried to institute an elder-led system at my last church, but our mother church wouldn’t let it fly. After that, it just never seemed important enough to push it through.
Here’s my point. Is establishing elders a biblical mandate? I want to be obedient, but I’m not sure where the Bible mandates a particular form of church government.
Here’s an interesting theory that a friend of mine used to advance. I have thought it through too diligently.
He was a DOM and not a fan of elders. His theory was that the NT church just adopted the form of government that was common. Every city or town had its elders who gave oversight. So, the NT church adopted the governmental form in the culture it was in.
That would be why the bible mentions elders but never specifically mandates them, by this theory.
Deacons were an addition to the form of government.
Chew on that one a while and tell me what you think.
For what it’s worth, here’s a summary of my current take on church leadership:
I see that God, by His Spirit, sovereignly distributes spiritual gifts, just as He sees fit (1 Cor. 12:11). In the context of 1 Cor. 12, where it teaches this, it also talks about “different kinds of service (or ministry)” (v. 5), and “different kinds of works (or activities)” (v. 6).
What I get from this is that God gives gifts to individual members in the Body of Christ, and then, He places these gifted people within the Body in such a way as to help the Body grow up to maturity (1 Cor. 12:18, Eph. 4:11-16).
I believe a good church leadership structure (and ministry structure, in general) is one that frees people to discover and put into practice the gifts, ministries, and activities God has given them and called them to carry out. It is not one that limits the practice of gifts and ministry to a “chosen few.” Exactly how this plays out may differ a bit from context to context. I think we are given some degree of flexibility here. The important point is mobilizing and facilitating those God has called and gifted for ministry to carry out the ministries God has called and gifted them to fulfill.
In some settings, God may have placed “x” amount of men with the necessary gifting and qualifications to be elders. In such a case, a good structure is one that allows all of these to function in the role God has prepared them to fulfill. In some settings, there may be only one man whom God has prepared, at any given time, to function as elder. In such a case, it is best not to force the matter of multiple eldership.
I would agree, however, that, as a general rule, God does tend to call and gift a plurality of elders in each setting. The key is being sensitive to the Spirit’s gifting in a certain context, and setting up our church structures accordingly. Some churches, at a certain stage in their development, work best with a certain structure, and then, later on in their development, with another structure. We must be careful to avoid getting locked in to a certain structure that might limit what the Spirit is doing or wants to do among us.
David Rogers said, “We must be careful to avoid getting locked in to a certain structure that might limit what the Spirit is doing or wants to do among us.”
That is what I’m trying to say.
I coached BB and soccer at a Christian in Cedar Rapids for many years. I find there are two kinds of coaches. There are coaches who have a system and make the players fit into the system. Bobby Knight was kind of like that. He ran man-to-man defense and motion offense regardless of who he had on the floor.
There are other coaches who look at the people they have and then form a system around those people. You may have some basic standards and practices that remain consistent, but you form the structure around your people instead of forcing your people into a structure.
I was that kind of coach. I think I want to be that kind of pastor as well. I think there are some eternal principles of church structure and you take those and then see what God has given you and form something that will work for that church.
I was going to try to institute an elder-led system at a previous ministry. But I looked around and asked – who in this congregation meets the biblical standard for an elder? When I realized that we didn’t really have such men, I realized forcing an elder group on that church at that time would be foolish. Immature or inconsistent elders will not help a church, they will harm it.
I think there is great flexibility within the basic eternal principles spelled out in scripture.
Above should have read, “I coached BB and soccer at a Christian SCHOOL in Cedar Rapids…”
Brother Dave,
It appears to me that God has given a clear foundation that must be rightly discerned in order to maintain the “norms” that have been left for the church relative to leadership. It is my observation that one of the biblical norms for the church is qualified leadership.
When you said,….
“I was going to try to institute an elder-led system at a previous ministry. But I looked around and asked – who in this congregation meets the biblical standard for an elder? When I realized that we didn’t really have such men, I realized forcing an elder group on that church at that time would be foolish. Immature or inconsistent elders will not help a church, they will harm it.”
That certainly makes sense and it sounds like we are not too far apart in what we are trying to describe. I don’t believe that the Apostle Paul was teaching that anyone is to force the Elders if none exists…but, the norm is that God provides Elders for His church. So as the church matures, it will “normally” have men that aspire (through discipleship) and lead the church as Paul has instructed Timothy and Titus. Scripture establishes this as the norm where multiple leaders provide stability, teaching, and sound doctrine.
Unfortunately most church leaders today in the SBC are not trained to think in the “norm” set forth by the Apostle. It is still a “lone ranger” approach that is encouraged and multiple Elders discouraged. It just doesn’t seem to make any sense.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
You have elders at your church, evidently. When they make decisions, does the church body have to give assent? Can the church undo a decision of the elders?
I’m interested in how it actually works.
Brother Dave,
I have not done a good job, in this format, of illuminating the reasons for Elders/Pastors in the church, so please forgive me. I am completing a white paper on Elder leadership that will be presented at the “Small Church Leadership Conference” coming up in the Nashville area in April, ….where this will be more cogent and contextual.
There are a couple of examples that I can use to try and illustrate the command to appoint multiple Elders and how it works whether the congregation is large or small. Let me be very clear…the size of the congregation is not a determinate on whether there are multiple Elders or not….it is the calling and aspiration that God has established for the building up of the church.
You asked, “You have elders at your church, evidently. When they make decisions, does the church body have to give assent? Can the church undo a decision of the elders?”
1. Yes, we do have Elders/Pastors (and a clear mindset for such) in our congregation. As I said earlier, Pastors/Elders (same dude) are designed to build up the body from a Spiritual point of view….working hard on rightly dividing the Word and not getting distracted. We have two Elders and we are praying with another man that is qualified, yet God calls and the man.. then he aspires and is affirmed by the congregation. All of this works together. So we will continue to pray that God leads so that we are able to have more “qualified men” to lead.
2. I’ll try to answer the question without changing the words, because we really don’t think of anyone as “having to give assent” in the course of how the church operates. I think decisions on “property” was brought up earlier. In a very, very short version….our Elders/Pastors may learn (could be from a member, etc) of a property that looks attractive and may have some benefit for the congregation (just an fyi…property is our last priority, but we will use it as an example anyway since for most churches these days it is “the priority”). The Elders will spend time praying and putting together an orderly presentation of what is entailed in acquiring this property (more than likely getting help from the lawyers and real estate experts that are members). Once this is done…then the Elders bring the presentation before the entire congregation and solicit for feedback, etc. to flush out any other issues, problems, questions, etc. The only way the Elders know this is done in order is to have everyone’s questions answered. This could take some time (patience is the key) and during this process, something may come about to end the pursuit or the congregation (the many as scripture clearly teaches…which always approaches 100%) may affirm. Of course, there is always the possibility that someone may come around who is immature and looking for a fight, or just likes to be cantankerous and has to have their own way….we as a congregation simply move past that circus and continue to disciple the individual to understand how to edify the church.
3. So, in a nutshell…. Elders/Pastors, lead, present, explain,…the congregation (of which the Elders are a part) listen, are involved, help and affirm, not by majority vote, but by the entire church being in agreement and affirming.
4. A decision of the Elders/Pastors is by in large participatory (certainly there are spiritual matters that are treated in a different context) of the entire congregation, so there “should be” no decisions that the body will need to undo by “voting”,…because they are highly involved in the “affirming”. Or as scripture would show, it is based upon these principles….
Acts 4:32 “And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.”
Acts 6:5-7 “The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. (6) And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. (7) The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.”
All are involved, and the Pastors/Elders are leading, making decisions, praying, teaching, etc. They were operating on the first principle (Acts 4:32) where “majority” voting gets the proverbial boot.
Blessings,
Chris
You brought up one of the key things I believe about church government. I try to operate by spirit-led concensus, not majority rule.
If we have a decision and opinions are running 60-40 or 70-30, we wait and continue praying and studying and talking until the Spirit of God developes a concensus.
I think I could operate very comfortably in the system you describe.
That’s a principle I learned from Henry Blackaby. Since Jesus is the head of the church, it is His job, not mine, to motivate and produce concensus. I present what I believe God’s will and guidance is, how God would want us to move. Then, God confirms this by the bringing concensus to the church.
Honestly, I think one of the big problems people have in leading churches is a failure to trust the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is great at motivating and bringing the church together. If I am operating on God’s agenda, the Spirit is my ally in convincing the church.
Spirit-led concensus is, to me, a key ingredient in effective church management as opposed to simple majority vote.
93 & 94, yes, yes,… “majority vote” leads to mediocrity and division, and establishes poor understanding of the principles set forth in Acts 2, and the rest of scripture as well.
Blessings,
Chris
In my humble, but correct opinion, this discussion has been a blessing and an example of solid, intense, God-honoring blogging debates. Thank you to all who participated.
Dave,
I’ve been thinking about this recently. What do you think about groups of believers who meet in a home? Are they a church as you post describes in the first Biblical example? I’ve heard in some circles that the local church must be the backbone of these smaller gatherings. I have only skimmed these many comments so maybe you have addressed this! I have another question but I’ll await your comment!
So nice to field your question, Matt 28:19,
Frankly, I think that is the gist of the entire discussion, what really constitutes the church.
I think, in a sense, any time a group of believers gather to worship, share the word and such, it is the church.
However, I think that in 1 Corinthians 12&14, there is a sense of an ongoing fellowship.
My impression is that in the biblical cities, there was one church in a city, but it met in different homes around the city and each of those fellowships, gathered together was also the church.
Dave,
I’m just thankful that when my local church doesn’t always meet my “felt needs”, like say a Christian knitting group, I can fall back on the good old home church.
Any comment?
I just know that no church I am ever associated with will have a Christian knitting group.
Is there really any such thing as a Christian knitting group?
Should there really be any such thing as a Christian knitting group?