A Biblical-Historical Model of Church Order, Part IV
The Problem of Contextualization
Though I have presented what I see as the contours of the biblical-historical local church order as it developed from the apostolic to post-apostolic period between AD 40 and 140, the practical question becomes, “Is this early church order descriptive or prescriptive?” That is, though the apostles and prophets established a particular church order in the late first century, are we Christians in the twenty-first century bound to this apostolic church order? We can approach this question with three models: primitivism, progressivism, or progress through perspective.
Primitivism seeks to adopt the ancient church order and practices, transforming our current forms to match—as closely as possible—the order of the early post-apostolic churches. However, such an approach fails to realize the unique historical and cultural situations of both the early churches and our twenty-first century churches. If the apostles had lived in twenty-first century North America, perhaps their order would have been different.
Progressivism seeks to reinvent Christian forms and structures for each new generation. A radical form of progressivism questions everything from doctrine to practice and has led many branches of Christianity into liberalism. But a more moderate progressivism tries to distinguish between form and substance, asserting that the message (theology) must be preserved, but its medium (method of communication) can change with new cultural contexts. In a progressivist approach to church order, the apostolic theology is important, but apostolic methods of doing church and ministry are often downplayed or ignored.
Progress through perspective seeks to adapt the apostolic teaching for the unique twenty-first century context. Generally, this mediating position is compelled to follow the apostolic teaching as its primary guide, but not in a way that forces a second century cultural form into a twenty-first century context. This position acknowledges that some things simply do not fit in our current cultures, but thinking through these issues is a difficult process that requires time, deliberation, and constant re-evaluation.
Where do I think we stand? In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul wrote, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” In light of this New Testament command, if we can actually determine the kind of local church order that was established by the apostles, I believe we are obligated to at least pay attention to it as we think about our own twenty-first century church order. It should not necessarily radically transform our current model, but as we seek to adjust our model of church order, the post-apostolic model should at least reasonably inform our decisions. As we make adjustments, it must be thoughtful and prudent, not merely pragmatic and convenient.
However, we must never forget that the apostolic age was very different from our own, and adopting the biblical-historical model without adapting it can be disastrous. For example, the earliest bishops and elders were hand-picked by the apostles and their delegates. Today we do not have apostles to appoint our pastor and elders. Also, the early churches enjoyed much more intimate inter-church community, so that each bishop and church was accountable to other bishops and churches in the region. Today our independent churches and separate denominations do not have this kind of mutual accountability. Another difference is that the early church did not have a complete canon of New Testament Scripture and therefore the bishop and elders had to be relied upon to preserve and defend the oral teaching of the apostles. Today we have a full canon of Scripture and final authority rests in the inspired, inerrant Word of God, to which all pastors and elders must submit. Similarly, the early church faced great challenges from false teachers, threats that demanded a strong leadership structure to provide doctrinal guidance in the midst of a hurricane of heresies. But today we have two thousand years of theological development and reflection, so that some of the issues that caused such concern in the early church are unquestioned by most believers. Differences like these must be considered as we approach the issue of how the biblical-historical model of church governance ought to inform our own approach. In short, we must proceed with caution.
However, I believe the model should serve to at least inform us as we think through questions of church order, especially in constitutionally-established independent churches and new church plants. As I reflect on “typical” (if I can use this term safely) tendencies in independent churches with regard to church governance, I would suggest considering the following, all of which would require careful, wise, and prayerful thought.
1. Consider unifying the pastoral staff and Elder Board into a single Council of Elders. I believe it is impossible to justify biblically or historically a separation of elders and pastors into two distinct groups. Biblically, all pastors must be elders. It seems permissible to appoint (i.e., ordain) certain elders to full time work in preaching, teaching, and evangelism, but being thus appointed does not mean these workers cease to be elders. (See 1 Timothy 5:17–18 for the biblical precedence of compensating elders for their pastoral work). In the biblical-historical model, elders did not merely oversee the work of pastors, teachers, and evangelists, but they were the pastors, teachers, and evangelists. Wouldn’t full time “pastors” as members of the elder board make the most biblical sense?
2. Consider appointing the Lead Pastor as Chairman of the Elder Board. If our “Lead” or “Senior” Pastor is functioning similar to the “overseeing elder” (episkopos) of the post-apostolic model, then should he not also function as the head of the Board of Elders? This would mean, of course, that we would consider restoring the Pastor to his biblical place as the head of the local church—not in a dictatorial sense, but in a sense of always being accountable to his fellow elders while providing the personal point of leadership. This would render the office of “Chairman of the Elder Board” redundant, as the Pastor would be the Chair.
3. Consider revising Elder and Deacon term limits. Nothing in the biblical-historical model suggests that elders and deacons in a local church served for a short time on a rotating basis. In fact, according to Clement of Rome’s recollection, the apostles had appointed presbyters until death. Would longer terms with less turnover better fit the biblical-historical model? Or, to keep elders and deacons accountable to the congregation, would two consecutive three-year terms and a sabbatical year of rest help create some greater continuity and stability? Considering that elders and deacons in the early church were appointed for life, would some modification here make sense?
4. Consider revisiting qualifications for Elders and Deacons. In light of the above suggestions, especially the possible return of pastors to the elder board and revising elder and deacon term limits, the question of qualifications for leadership would need to be revisited. Because elders were the teaching, pastoring, and preaching leaders of the early church, are we drifting from the biblical model if our elders are not functioning in these roles? Should those who are currently teaching, pastoring, and preaching be the elders (i.e., those who are already functioning as the biblical elders without the actual office)? Several questions here need to be asked. Since there is no biblical distinction between elders and pastors, should our elders be trained, ordained men, meeting the same qualifications as our pastors? Why should our requirements for elders be less than that of pastors? These are simply questions that need to be raised.
Primitivism seeks to adopt the ancient church order and practices, transforming our current forms to match—as closely as possible—the order of the early post-apostolic churches. However, such an approach fails to realize the unique historical and cultural situations of both the early churches and our twenty-first century churches. If the apostles had lived in twenty-first century North America, perhaps their order would have been different.
Progressivism seeks to reinvent Christian forms and structures for each new generation. A radical form of progressivism questions everything from doctrine to practice and has led many branches of Christianity into liberalism. But a more moderate progressivism tries to distinguish between form and substance, asserting that the message (theology) must be preserved, but its medium (method of communication) can change with new cultural contexts. In a progressivist approach to church order, the apostolic theology is important, but apostolic methods of doing church and ministry are often downplayed or ignored.
Progress through perspective seeks to adapt the apostolic teaching for the unique twenty-first century context. Generally, this mediating position is compelled to follow the apostolic teaching as its primary guide, but not in a way that forces a second century cultural form into a twenty-first century context. This position acknowledges that some things simply do not fit in our current cultures, but thinking through these issues is a difficult process that requires time, deliberation, and constant re-evaluation.
Where do I think we stand? In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul wrote, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” In light of this New Testament command, if we can actually determine the kind of local church order that was established by the apostles, I believe we are obligated to at least pay attention to it as we think about our own twenty-first century church order. It should not necessarily radically transform our current model, but as we seek to adjust our model of church order, the post-apostolic model should at least reasonably inform our decisions. As we make adjustments, it must be thoughtful and prudent, not merely pragmatic and convenient.
However, we must never forget that the apostolic age was very different from our own, and adopting the biblical-historical model without adapting it can be disastrous. For example, the earliest bishops and elders were hand-picked by the apostles and their delegates. Today we do not have apostles to appoint our pastor and elders. Also, the early churches enjoyed much more intimate inter-church community, so that each bishop and church was accountable to other bishops and churches in the region. Today our independent churches and separate denominations do not have this kind of mutual accountability. Another difference is that the early church did not have a complete canon of New Testament Scripture and therefore the bishop and elders had to be relied upon to preserve and defend the oral teaching of the apostles. Today we have a full canon of Scripture and final authority rests in the inspired, inerrant Word of God, to which all pastors and elders must submit. Similarly, the early church faced great challenges from false teachers, threats that demanded a strong leadership structure to provide doctrinal guidance in the midst of a hurricane of heresies. But today we have two thousand years of theological development and reflection, so that some of the issues that caused such concern in the early church are unquestioned by most believers. Differences like these must be considered as we approach the issue of how the biblical-historical model of church governance ought to inform our own approach. In short, we must proceed with caution.
However, I believe the model should serve to at least inform us as we think through questions of church order, especially in constitutionally-established independent churches and new church plants. As I reflect on “typical” (if I can use this term safely) tendencies in independent churches with regard to church governance, I would suggest considering the following, all of which would require careful, wise, and prayerful thought.
1. Consider unifying the pastoral staff and Elder Board into a single Council of Elders. I believe it is impossible to justify biblically or historically a separation of elders and pastors into two distinct groups. Biblically, all pastors must be elders. It seems permissible to appoint (i.e., ordain) certain elders to full time work in preaching, teaching, and evangelism, but being thus appointed does not mean these workers cease to be elders. (See 1 Timothy 5:17–18 for the biblical precedence of compensating elders for their pastoral work). In the biblical-historical model, elders did not merely oversee the work of pastors, teachers, and evangelists, but they were the pastors, teachers, and evangelists. Wouldn’t full time “pastors” as members of the elder board make the most biblical sense?
2. Consider appointing the Lead Pastor as Chairman of the Elder Board. If our “Lead” or “Senior” Pastor is functioning similar to the “overseeing elder” (episkopos) of the post-apostolic model, then should he not also function as the head of the Board of Elders? This would mean, of course, that we would consider restoring the Pastor to his biblical place as the head of the local church—not in a dictatorial sense, but in a sense of always being accountable to his fellow elders while providing the personal point of leadership. This would render the office of “Chairman of the Elder Board” redundant, as the Pastor would be the Chair.
3. Consider revising Elder and Deacon term limits. Nothing in the biblical-historical model suggests that elders and deacons in a local church served for a short time on a rotating basis. In fact, according to Clement of Rome’s recollection, the apostles had appointed presbyters until death. Would longer terms with less turnover better fit the biblical-historical model? Or, to keep elders and deacons accountable to the congregation, would two consecutive three-year terms and a sabbatical year of rest help create some greater continuity and stability? Considering that elders and deacons in the early church were appointed for life, would some modification here make sense?
4. Consider revisiting qualifications for Elders and Deacons. In light of the above suggestions, especially the possible return of pastors to the elder board and revising elder and deacon term limits, the question of qualifications for leadership would need to be revisited. Because elders were the teaching, pastoring, and preaching leaders of the early church, are we drifting from the biblical model if our elders are not functioning in these roles? Should those who are currently teaching, pastoring, and preaching be the elders (i.e., those who are already functioning as the biblical elders without the actual office)? Several questions here need to be asked. Since there is no biblical distinction between elders and pastors, should our elders be trained, ordained men, meeting the same qualifications as our pastors? Why should our requirements for elders be less than that of pastors? These are simply questions that need to be raised.
0 comments:
Post a Comment