The relationship between elders and individual members of a congregation seems a bit tricky to me. In the kindness of the Lord, I have the opportunity to reflect on this relationship with Rob Plummer and Mike Cosper (two of our elders at Sojourn) on a somewhat regular basis (especially since the elders of our church have put foward a new proposed constitution). We have agreed on some things and disagreed on others. These are my thoughts so far:
On the one hand, we are commanded to "obey our leaders and submit to them" and to "imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:17, 7). On the other hand, we can see a consistent emphasis in the NT epistles on congregational responsibility/authority. Here’s the support I see in Scripture—(and anybody reading this blog is very likely more able than I am in interpretation, so correct me by all means!)
The churches in Revelation (not just the elders) are held responsible for corporate sins and not just individual ones (also in 1 Timothy). Paul holds the members (he doesn't mention the elders) of the church at Galatia responsible for ensuring biblical teaching and resisting those who are heretical—even if it’s the Apostle Paul! 1 Corinthians makes clear, as does Matthew 18 that the congregation has a responsibility in church discipline and 2 Corinthians 2 shows that the gathering has some responsibility in reconciliation. In 2 Corinthians 10-13, Paul lays out a grid for judging leaders, stressing that some should be kicked out! Dave, the Carson article Sojourn gave us to read for leadership training describes the Systematic deductions that I draw from these texts:
"In 1 Corinthians and again in Matthew 18, the Lord Jesus insists that when things come down to the crunch, you tell the conflict to the church. You tell it to the church—for not only is there wisdom in the whole church, but there is a final sanction in the whole church. In fact, in the New Testament, there is a running tension between the authority that rests with the church and the authority bound up with the elders." (Don Carson)
So it is absolutely crucial that I am obeying and submitting to my leaders, but it's equally crucial that I realize there are situations when by doing that, I could displease the Lord. Some examples would be Martin Luther disobeying his leaders, or J. Gresham Machen, John Murray and others in the PCUSA disobeying and disassociating with their denomination due to its Gospel aberrations. From what I can tell, these men would have been sinning had they obeyed their leaders.
It's also one reason (I think) that, by the Lord's grace, we have denominations. The First Century church's concerns weren't with the ordinances--not out of neglect or irresponsibility--they just hadn't gotten there yet! By the Lord's grace, we have had two thousand years to study Scripture further and develop more personal, biblically-based convictions (that as individuals we believe we are held accountable by the Lord to act upon), such as views of pre-conversion baptism, the way local churches should be governed, etc.
So, I guess I think that the normal pattern of doctrinal belief is to trust one's elders, but I would add two exceptions to this regular rule. When there is:
1. Divergence on the fundamentals of the Gospel or any other seemingly clear teaching of Scripture (like God knowing the future, or eschatology-just kidding)
2. Divergence on doctrine that affects the practice of a local church (and implicitly gives a definition for "church" that you think is unbiblical). So, I think it would be displeasing to the Lord for me to stay at a Presbyterian church in Louisville if I became thoughtfully convinced that the Bible teaches believers baptism, even if that Presbyterian church was orthodox on the essentials of the faith and my elders thought I should stay.
The importance of these exceptions is hightened when we realize Scripture makes clear that as church members we are responsible in some way for what we are letting our elders teach us and (if it's not too strong to say), we are somehow endorsing their teaching by remaining in the pew.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Justin Mullins once described a change of church to me as a divorce. Patience, humility and longsuffering must be stressed.
Am I right that differences on the first issue is the difference between a true and false church? How would you describe differences on the second issue?
Also, are you satisfied with the lines drawn by today's conservative evangelical denominations? What personal obligation do you maintain to churches with which you cannot covenant, both without your denomination and to churches within?
I appreciated your stress on the difference between our current setting and the early church, who had yet to draw these lines. There are places in the world (places in this country?) where the church scence might mirror the early church more closely. How do you feel about "missional membership" like what I hope for in the south? Or about Ethiopian Christians remaining in the Orthodox church to preach the gospel?
Wow...lots of things.
Differences on the second issue would make for an "irregular" church. I wouldn't feel comfortable at all calling a presbyterian church a false church, but I do think their ecclesiological mistakes are big and important. They would define the church differently than I would. However, they would hold to the same Gospel, the same mission of the church and the same basic way that mission should be carried out--through responsible church membership (in principle), the regular gathering, preached Word and sacraments. For these reasons I don't think it would be a false church. I'm sure there's a better word for this than "irregular". Any thoughts on that?
I am satisfied with the lines drawn in CED's (are we allowed to use acronymns like that in blogs?- sure is handy!), but probably not with the spirit and reasoning that most laypeople and clergy in CED's have behind these decisions. Make sense?
In terms of my responsibilities to other churches I think I should love them, pray for them, encourage their Gospel ministry, and cultivate (by the Lord's grace) a heart-attitude that is truly thankful for them and desirous to learn from them. But I do still see a responsibility to humbly (under the right circumstances) encourage the leaders of these churches to re-evaluate their church practices in light of Scripture. I remember early on in my time at Capitol Hill asking Mark if he ever encouraged Lig Duncan to rethink baptism. He said that he never really did and that maybe he should. I'm a bit surprised that we aren't doing more of that (baptist elders talking with Presbyterian elders about those sorts of things).
In terms of missional membership, I guess it depends on a lot of things. I think that many times there are churches that haven't gotten far enough to settle many doctrinal issues (like the early church), but I also think there are many churches that are self-consciously decided on those issues in the wrong way--a much different situation!
The situation for someone going to preach at a "rough" church as a pastor is different than a layperson going to the same church. I think you (Dave A.) could probably go anywhere as long as you could be honest with that congregation about the way you would preach and where you would like to see the church go. I think a layperson definitely shouldn't go somewhere where the Gospel isn't preached. That's the chief non-negotiable. After that it gets a lot more fuzzy for a layperson. A town could have only one Gospel-preaching church and it could be presbyterian, in which case I would say GO THERE!! No question!! In terms of how many other things have to be wrong besides the Gospel for it to be a bad idea for a layperson to join, it's probably all situation-relative. Does that get at what you're thinking?
Because I think Scripture comes down so hard on false teachers and those who are under their teaching, I don't think I would encourage anyone (Ethiopian or anyone else) to stay in a church that doesn't preach the Gospel. I think that would be dangerous!!! Tell me your thoughts though. Am I being too over the top?
I don't think you're too over-the-top. I watched my parents struggle at his church for over 3 years and am thankful that they are seeking refuge elsewhere. My encouragement to him was that, if he stayed, he'd have to fight for change. And he's not called to lead in that way, he's called to follow.
With coverted Ethiopian church leaders remaining in the Orthodox church, it's hard to say. We're all thankful Luther didn't stay (but, historically, was he kicked out or did her leave?). However, in my recent readings about the early church, they speculate that Christians initially continued ministering/preaching within the synagogues until they could no more. Was that just apologetics, or an effort to remain a Jewish Christian and reform Judaism?
Since you're satisfied with the lines of CED, are their Baptist churches you could not join? How do you relate with other Baptist churches with which you cannot covenant in good conscience? Is their any responsibility of brotherhood, a la PCA churches?
It is good to see the discussion that is presently taking place between Dever, Mohler, Piper, Storms, Duncan, and others about baptism, the table, and church membership. Scott, I agree that it is a good thing for denominational leaders to help one another think these things out. Perhaps your question had an influence on Mark and the current conversation (see the T4G blog).
This conversation is a good reminder that even though we've embraced the gospel, we do not "get it" all the time, and we definitely do not "get" every issue.
Sovereign Lord, quickly bring the day when our denominational and doctrinal Babel will be undone by an eternal Pentecost--where every Christian only speaks the language of the Spirit.
Real quick,
I know some people don't like "Perspective" books but I am currently reading, "Perspectives on Church Government" in which James White (Plural Elder Led, Congregatioanlism) and Daniel Akin (Single Paster Led Congregationalism) throw down. It might be worth a read to see some Scriptural and Historical Analysis between the differing views.
Also, in regards to our current setting and the first century church. Tim Keller has begun to argue that our current setting is more like the first century church than it ever has been. Therefore we can learn more from Acts than we have ever been able to. I will link the articles soon.
Check my blog soon for my thoughts on the Multi-Site church and the implication of it's polity.
Post a Comment