|
By Danny Goins
Pastor, Fayetteville First Church of God, Fayetteville, WV |
|
Editor’s Note: A portion of this paper appeared as an article in Truth Matters, April 2014 under the title “The Authority of Extra-Congregational Councils in the New Testament Church.” The entire paper appears here in conjunction with the rest of the papers presented at Locust Springs in April 2013.
In Barry L. Callen’s book, The Assembly Speaks, he opens with an article written by Leslie W. Ratzaff entitled, “Functioning above Sectarianism.” The article was published in the June 30, 1985, issue of Vital Christianity. This is the Editor’s Note that precedes the article, “The following provides theological per-spective on the nature of the local Christian congregations as traditionally perceived among Church of God people. Congregations relate voluntarily to the reformation movement and to any agencies or assemblies formed to assist with the work of the church.”
The same article concluded with this summary, “The Church of God transcends any human alliance! Alliance separates from fellow Christians. Cooperation, yes; formal alliances, no. The Church of God is married to Christ alone and responds ultimately only to the Divine drumbeat.
“In Summary let it be understood that the Church of God Reformation Movement, along with other reforming movements, is an important servant of Christendom. Its task is to help the Church awaken and constantly measure up to God’s standard. It plays a John-the-Baptist role in helping the Church come into God’s own. The Reformation Movement serves to provide agencies that help the Church fulfill her Kingdom Building assignment.
“The local church of God congregation, however, is under the sovereignty of God, and is a divine-human organism answerable to God alone. Its relationship to the Church of God Reformation Movement is voluntary.”
“Cooperation, yes, formal alliances, no.” The relevant and vital question at this juncture in our Movement concerns whether congregational autonomy is a Biblical principle or simply a traditional conviction. Traditions sometimes become burdens and yokes that hinder the current efforts of the church as it endeavors to carry out the work of the kingdom. Traditions sometimes need to be set aside that a more productive method can be incorporated into the life of the church. On the other hand, Biblical principle and early New Testament Church patterns were inspired by God and should never be forsaken or compromised.
A proactive element has emerged in the Reformation that views congregational autonomy as a hindering tradition. Those who hold this opinion are making an assertive effort through the credentialing process, conditional deeding, and covenant agreements, to develop a new structure in which both ministers and congregations will be held accountable to the church at large in a way we have not done in the past.
A covenant is a legal contract; once signed it is binding. Congregational conditional deeding is also a legal contract that is binding. A national credentialing manual has been offered as a suggested pattern for states to implement, and once implemented the manual becomes legally binding. These newly introduced procedures are producing a legal state and national alliance rather than a voluntary cooperative structure. Church of God congregations that have practiced complete autonomy in the past are, in my opinion, unaware that they are joining this formal alliance, when their State General Assemblies adopt the manual.
Autonomy is a compound word consisting of autos, self, and nomos, law. Therefore the compound word literally speaks concerning self-law or self-governing. Autonomy is defined in The Random House College Dictionary as, "Independence . . . the right of self-government . . . a self-governing community." The autonomy practiced by first century churches demonstrates that the early church was not a denomination (a group bound together in structure).
New Testament writers give no indication or instance where a local church was to submit to the authority of other congregations or any human form of organization. There are no Biblical references to committees, boards, or structured assemblies that are given the responsibility of instructing, controlling, or governing any local congregation of the church of God—not one. Each congregation was to be ruled by the head, Jesus Christ; each was to follow the teaching of the Apostles, and each was to be led by the Holy Spirit. When the New Testament writings completed the written form of the eternal Word of God, established congregations had a standard by which to live, a rule book to follow, and a pattern by which they could be fashioned into the church which our Lord desires.
It is to the blessed book of the ages that congregations of the church of God need to return. The Word should hold a greater influence than the threat of the loss of tax exemption, disassociation, or even expulsion from any human organization. Notice what the scriptures teach about “elders,” who were those given Biblical authority to serve in the church of God.
"The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock," 1 Peter 5:1-3.
"So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed," Acts 14:23.
Although easy to overlook, these passages show a Biblical structure and pattern for each local church of God. First, note the elders, who "oversee" the local church (symbolized here as the flock), were appointed to each individual congregation. They were not overseers of districts, states, or national ministries—their oversight was limited to the local congregation of the church of God in which they were appointed as an elder. These elders, or overseers, were instructed to tend "the flock of God which is among you.” Their guidance, management, and oversight of the affairs of their local assembly were to be a demonstration of Christian servanthood.
When the Apostle Paul addressed the elders at Ephesus in Acts 20:28, admonishing them to feed the church of God, he was speaking to elders of a single local church. Each church is to have its own set of elders who are to minister careful support and Holy Spirit guidance for their local assembly according to Acts 14:23. New Testament elders did not hold any authority over the affairs of other congregations; they were instructed to oversee the affairs of those that are "among" them. Every congregation of the church of God was equal, and each was individually accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ. Their elders were to be “of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business,” Acts 6:3.
Consider as further evidence of congregational autonomy what the scriptures tell us concerning the collection and distribution of funds. "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. But if it is fitting that I go also, they will go with me," 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.
Although Paul as an apostle would presumably have authority to order the Corinthian church to take up a collection, he did not usurp control over their financial matters. Please notice two of the phrases from the passage: "whomever you approve by your letters" and "to bear your gift to Jerusalem.” At no point did Paul take ownership or control of the Corinthian’s funds. The Corinthians controlled both the choice of messenger and "their gift" that was given to support the struggling saints at Jerusalem. Paul didn’t violate their autonomy; he specifically recognized the local church’s authority in determining what they would give and who would bear the responsibility of carrying their benevolent gift to its destination.
Again I see this as an example of local church organization. It is the pattern. Scripture’s absolute silence for authorizing any other type of church oversight excludes all other forms of collective church oversight.
When it came to benevolent needs, local churches sent to other local churches (Acts 11: 27-30; I Cor. 16: 1-2; Rom. 15:25-27). Benevolence is not a permanent, ongoing work of the local church as is preaching the gospel. In the 60 years of inspired church history we are given only these three separate instances of church benevolence being extended from one congregation to another. This is the duty of the saints of God. If congregations love God, they are going to love the brethren as well. John tells us not to simply love in word but in deed as well. If and when needs arise in locations outside of a local community where a church resides and that congregation is led of the Spirit to send a gift, then by all means they should obey the Spirit. Note, however, that the relief was sent to the elders of those local churches for distribution (Acts 11: 29, 30)—not to agencies, headquarters, or organizations.
Autonomy was the practice of the local New Testament churches. They were independent and self-governed, but each local church submitted to the headship of Jesus and participated in the work God assigned to them.
Not long ago, while in a meeting I was told that what took place in Jerusalem in Acts 15 was Biblical proof that the early church had a headquarters and therefore the church of God needs to rethink our stand on autonomy. I feel, therefore, that it is important to consider Acts 15 to weigh the merit in that proposal.
Acts 15 is the record of a meeting or convocation of sorts. It was held to determine a doctrinal matter. Is this the pattern for a governing body holding power and authority to determine doctrines and creeds? Let's first examine the background of this meeting:
"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.’ Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter," Acts 15:1-6 NKJV.
The issue concerned whether the Gentile Christians should be circumcised and keep the customs of the Old Testament. We can learn at least two things from this passage: first, those attending this meeting were not representatives of many congregations who had come together to vote upon a creed. Those who met were the apostles, the elders of the Jerusalem church, and Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas had learned that false doctrine was coming from some teachers in Jerusalem (vss. 4-6). Second, the reason for this meeting was not to poll the church or vote on a creed or “standard of belief,” but it was to determine God's will and teaching for the matter.
The apostles were representatives of God. The elders of the church of God in Jerusalem needed to be there, since it was from their congregation that the trouble had originated. Most, if not all of those present, then, were Spirit-filled Christian leaders. That is not so in many modern humanly-led organizations. This meeting, then, is beyond application to us because of both its constituents and its purpose.
Later in the chapter we read of Peter's account of God's miraculous revelation that the Gentiles, too, may be saved; and the numerous accounts of God working miracles through Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles; and finally of James' recognition of the prophecies which had foretold of the salvation of Gentiles. Based upon these miraculous, inspired, and scriptural arguments, the apostles and elders decided a letter should be circulated to stop the spread and influence of the false doctrine. From this letter and its circulation, we learn three more things to support the contention that the primitive church did not practice multi-congregational government:
"They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, ‘To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.’ So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement. Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words," Acts 15:22-32.
First, the authority figures in this meeting were the apostles and prophets who represented God. A meeting of uninspired congregational representatives voting upon standards, policies, local church responsibilities, direction and doctrines for the church of God is in no sense parallel to this meeting that was guided by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Second, the elders of the church at Jerusalem needed to be there since it was from their church that these false teachers went out spreading their doctrine. Apparently, the false teachers used the Jerusalem church as some kind of reference or support, since the letter specifically clarifies that the false teachers had taught such without endorsement (15:24).
Third, the Holy Spirit had inspired and endorsed the decision of this meeting. This is evidenced by the following phrase from verse 28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit," and it is further supported by the prophets who traveled with the letter for a personal endorsement (15:27).
I see no valid reason to say that this text in Acts 15 implies, alludes to, or substantiates in any way, the idea that the early church of God had headquarters in Jerusalem.
One final observation: had the headquarters of the early church been located in Jerusalem, then does it not stand to reason that Jesus would have had John send the message of His evaluation of the seven church of God congregations in Asia, to the headquarters in Palestine that they might call a general assembly meeting to pull the credentials of those local congregations if they did not comply with the council’s requirements?
Jesus, the head of the church of God, chose to send the message to the angels, or the pastors, of each congregation. Jesus’ words warned the faltering congregations and admonished them to overcome or He would personally discipline them. Why do we forget that the church belongs to Jesus, He purchased her with His own blood, and He is the head of the body, and in all things He is to have the preeminence?
Each church of God congregation is to be autonomous, but that autonomy is subject to the law and love of Jesus Christ. Our relationship with Jesus binds congregations together in a spiritual bond that is longsuffering and supportive. The church is called to be united in a love relationship comparable to the Father and Son. That will never happen with men, boards, or assemblies in control. “Cooperation, yes, formal alliances, no.”
Certainly we need some structure, a means of coordinating our state and national efforts. We need to communicate with each other, facilitate that all are equipped with the best resources available, educate both the young and aging, but never should our structure endeavor to mandate what church of God congregations do. That responsibility belongs to Christ and Christ alone. Let’s take our hands off and see what Jesus can do with His bride. I can live with that arrangement; for I am content to dwell in the church of God alone.
O Church of God
The church of God one body is, One Spirit dwells within; And all her members are redeemed And triumph over sin.
Divinely built, divinely ruled, To God she doth submit;
God sets her members each in place According to His will— Apostles, prophet, teachers all His purpose to fulfil.
O Church of God, I love thy courts, Thou mother of the free; Thou blessed home of all the saved, I dwell content in thee. --C. W. Naylor, 1922
|
