Chapter Eleven
Dealing With Differences in
Government
Differences
in government fit under all the previous categories, but they pose
particular problems for unity. One can consider toleration within many
areas of doctrine and practice; but, after all, a single church, the one,
true church, can only be governed in one way. Or so it seems.
I
don't have any easy answer here, or in any other area of our discussion.
It may be that in God's providence, governmental differences will prevent
church union; or perhaps that union will simply not be possible unless the
Spirit (working contrary to the forces of denominationalism which tend to
harden our differences) teaches the whole church some new things
from the Scriptures.
Of
course, ultimate reunion, by most prognostications, is a long way off,
unless the Lord intends to come very soon. So if we do not see an answer
to the question of how the reorganized one, true church will be governed,
we can, for the present, simply resolve to "cross that bridge when we
come to it," meanwhile chipping away at those other barriers which
may be easier to handle at the moment. It may be that in time we may
be able to reorganize into three great evangelical denominations: one
Episcopal, one Presbyterian, and one Congregational association. Once that
is done we could start to worry about government!
But
let me say a few things about church government which may stimulate us to
further thought.
The
New Testament contains relatively little normative teaching about church
government, compared to its teaching on the person of Christ, the
atonement, the resurrection, the Spirit, justification, Christian
morality, the last days. Much is said about the church as the body of
Christ, about its gifts and unity, about its tasks in worship, evangelism
and instruction; but little is said about how it is to be
governed. The book of Acts makes clear that the apostles were the rulers
of the church in their day and that they appointed assistants
for various tasks (6:1ff), but there is, remarkably, no indication
of how the church is to be governed after the deaths of the apostles.
The Pastoral epistles and other books make references to church officers
such as "bishops," "elders"[1]
and "deacons," and require obedience to them. Qualifications for
these offices are stated (I Tim. 3:1-13, Tit. 1:5-9), exhortations to the
officers are made (Acts 20:17-37, I Pet. 5:1-4), but their powers and
relations to one another are never stated and the manner of choosing them
is somewhat obscure. In one case, something like an election seems to
have taken place (Acts 6:3, 5); in another, an apostolic representative
was given power to appoint (Tit. 1:5). (The latter example may be taken to
favor Episcopacy, the former Presbyterianism or Congregationalism.
I
am, as I stated earlier, a Presbyterian, because I believe in a body of
congregations connected to one another by a plurality of elected
representative-officers. I believe this because (a) I find in the New
Testament some indication that the Christians followed in general the
organization of the synagogues from which they came, because (b) it
appears that bodies larger than local house-churches functioned as
"churches," and because (c) the New Testament always refers to
church rulers ("the bishops," "the elders") in the
plural. Pragmatically, the Presbyterian form seems to me to allow the best
combination of mutual accountability with local control and freedom, a
system which forms the pattern, e.g., for the remarkably
successful structure of the
I
would hope that the one, true church will one day, by God's grace, achieve
reunion and adopt the Presbyterian form of government as its pattern for
reorganization. However, the arguments for Presbyterianism summarized
above are certainly not water tight; certainly they don't have the same
force as those for the deity of Christ or salvation by grace. After all,
the New Testament never commands
us to follow the "synagogue pattern" alluded to in (a). And
although the evidence for city-churches (presbyteries) is strong in the
New Testament, it is harder to establish the existence of courts higher
than those, except for that which included the apostolic band itself
(Acts 15) and which had only one meeting that we know of; so (b) may not
lead us to a full-blown Presbyterian structure. And although the New
Testament speaks of bishops and elders in the plural (c), this fact does
not quite prove that all churches were normatively required to have a
plurality of elders. Can we be sure that there was never any church in
which only one man was qualified for the eldership? Can we be sure that
there were no distinctions of gifts, wisdom and responsibilities among the
elders such that one could become primus inter pares?
So
there is some uncertainty about the original form of government in the New
Testament. If it were important to God that the church be governed in one
and only one way, I have no doubt that he would have made it more clear.
Therefore, I am inclined to take the issue of church government a bit
less seriously than many people do.[2]
I think that God regards the structure and method of
church government to be less important than the reality of Jesus'
own government of the church as its supreme priest-king. The
relative indifference of the New Testament to matters of human
government would seem to be an invitation to us to take the reality
of Jesus' own government more seriously. Related to this,
another reason, perhaps, for the uncertainty about governmental
structure is that this structure is less important than the
spiritual qualities of the leaders and the people. When those
spiritual qualities are lacking, the best form of government
(the Presbyterian, of course) will be a curse upon God's people.
When they are present, even inadequate forms of government will
work well.[3]
Mutual
trust is especially important. Many Christians (especially Presbyterians)
think that no government will be adequate unless there are many checks and
balances against the abuse of power such as we find in the various denominational Forms
of Government. But formal procedures become important only when there is
conflict to be resolved, distrust of informal agreements, etc. Until Jesus
returns, sin will be in the world, and we will always need some sorts of
formal checks and balances, some formal procedures for doing things, some
standard ways of redressing grievances, etc. But the more mutual trust
there is, the less of that will be necessary. The more we genuinely
love each other, the less difference it will make whether, e.g.,
there are three or five men on some committee, or whether
judicial appellants must first submit their appeals to a committee
of presbytery.[4]
I
suspect that if God ever permits the one, true church to reunite under a
common government, he will at the same time bring about a great increase
in our love and trust for one another; how else could reunion even be
conceivable? And when that happens, even though I dearly hope that the
church will be Presbyterian, it won't bother me terribly if my dear
brothers choose another system to govern God's people. I trust that
this attitude of mine is not motivated by theological
indifference, but by a desire to respect the emphasis, as well as the
specific teaching, of the Word of God, and to promote the unity of
the church which the Word of God requires more clearly than
it requires any particular governmental structure.
Consider
the following.[5] We
have seen that the relative silence in the N. T. about form of government
is related to the importance of theocentric government, the rule of Christ
himself through the Spirit. Bureaucracy and constitution are at best
expressions of the life of the Spirit and of immense potential value
because of it, at worst presiders over a corpse or a counterfeit.
Moreover,
it could be argued that our fascination with bureaucracy and constitution
is partly a cultural reflex of the attempt to map civic political power
relations directly on to the church and vice versa. Thus the debates
among Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalists
recapitulate the debates among democrats, republicans, monarchists.
Granting,
then, that the fundamental issue for the New Testament is the rule of God
through the Spirit, the biblical method of determining policy must be, not
majority vote as such, but Spirit-generated consensus among the
leadership. The elders did have Christ's authority to rule, but they
recognized a world of difference between godly rule and worldly tyranny.
They were to rule in a unique, non-worldly way, as
"servant-leaders," following the steps of Jesus himself (Matt.
20:26-28). Further, they knew that they were not the depositories of all
wisdom, and no leader with any sense thinks that he can drive the sheep
where they have no inkling to go. Good leadership is always consultative,
in the sense of consulting the well-being of those led. It listens to the
whole people of God, and particularly to those for whom it is responsible.
Of course it does not merely capitulate to what the sheep already think
their well-being is, but educates them. And by educating them it is able
to lead them rather than simply driving them.
But
that means that in a healthy church the debate between Congregationalism
and Presbyterianism is largely an academic one. What difference does it
make to Spiritual life? If you start wth the leaders (Presbyterianism),
you nevertheless discover at the heart of biblical leadership the
consultative, or, better, servant pattern, which recognizes and uses the
gifts (including gifts of administration) residing in the congregation as
a whole and in its members individually in varying degrees. If you start
with the congregation (Congregationalism), you find at the heart of
biblical wisdom in the congregation's decision-making the necessary
conviction that some are more gifted and that their gifts (which are gifts
of the Lord and not merely the congregation's property to manage as it
wishes) must be given full scope for exercise.
The
differences between the two emerge when controversy strikes. There the
formal constitution determines the rules of the fight. In such cases,
however, Congregationalism can degenerate into mob mania and
Presbyterianism into high handedness. Then the only solution is to recover
the spiritual priority: Spirit-led consensus, servant leadership. While
broader courts can help some (and thus I prefer Presbyterianism),
our goal is not to have some solution imposed by a broader
authority, but to have restored the brotherly unity of mind which comes
only from God's grace.
Now
let us perspectivalize Episcopacy. James is the informal bishop in Acts
15, I think. Any good bishop acts like any other good leader-- he is
consultative. James sums up the arguments, the state of consensus. By
doing so he may even create somewhat greater consensus. But how could anyone
with biblical wisdom necessary to become a bishop think that all wisdom
was summed up in him or in his superiors alone? He has listened to
a debate, and almost certainly learned something from it. Outside of
modern constitutional arrangements, many traditional cultures operate a
good deal by consensus. There are of course the usual opportunities for
abuse. But again wise leaders can't get too far ahead of their followers.
And wise minorities will know when to show proper deference to leaders,
even when the consensus of those leaders is distasteful to them.
On
the above principles, a monarchical bishop would not be a terribly bad
thing, especially if (1) he were appointed from below, by consensus,
rather than from above (though it would be proper for the consensus to be
influenced by those who are already in leadership positions), and (2) one
can make an appeal over the bishop to correct abuses. One thinks of the
checks and balances in the U. S. Constitution: analogous checks could help in
the church situation.
What
of Independency? The Independents have given up on all constitutions and
bureaucracies broader than the parish size (what an arbitrary stopping
point!) mostly because they see people preoccupied with the formal
structures and not with the Spiritual life that the structures are
supposed to facilitate.
The
main conclusion: if we take seriously the biblical principles (1) that God
himself rules the church (2) through his Word by way of Spirit-led
consensus (3) administered by servant leaders who understand their
limitations and the gifts of others in the body, then the practical
differences between Presbyterianism, Congregationalism and Episcopacy
would be very small. These terms, indeed, could describe a single form of government
from three different perspectives!
The
way to unity is precisely a renewal of that love and respect for God and
one another that will lead to a Spirit-led church government.[6] As
I write these words, incredible changes in government are
occurring in what once was the "Communist bloc." Can we not pray
that God will work within his own people as well, to bring about the
kinds of government which will honor Him and therefore lead
to reunion?