Ask a conservative Presbyterian what Jesus taught about church government and you’ll likely be directed to Matthew 18. That’s where Jesus talks about going to an offending brother in private, then bringing someone with you, and finally, if necessary, telling his offense “to the church.”
I won’t deny that we can derive some principles of church government from Matthew 18, but it seems an odd place to start. We start there, I think, because we’ve predefined “church government” as primarily a matter of structure and procedure. And if we think in these terms, Matthew 18 is about the only place where Jesus addresses the issue. But if we allow Jesus to define the term, he was constantly talking about church government.
In his earthly ministry, Christ offered two major directives for the government of the church, and he offered them over and over: 1) Don’t be like the Pharisees. 2) Be a servant, like me. He elaborated on these directives at considerable length to be sure we wouldn’t miss the point. These two directives are the heart of church government, the sine qua non. But of course we miss the point anyway.
Even when things get so bad that a congregation thinks about leaving the denomination (OPC, PCA, whatever), they ask the wrong question. They don’t say, “Where can we go where the shepherds serve the sheep humbly and don’t lord it over them, just as Jesus commanded?” They say, “What other Presbyterian options do we have?”
We’ve made the form of government our first priority. It’s non-negotiable. Whatever Jesus recommended will have to come in a Presbyterian form or we’ll just do without. It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.
We reap what we sow. Our obsession with the structure of church government leaves us with lengthy books of church order that spell out the minutiae of every procedure. It surrounds us with lawyer-like men who know how to use that book to stifle debate or railraod motions.
Many true ministers of the Gospel are demoralized like this. (I remember the case of a minister friend who was travelling to General Assembly and reviewing all the upcoming proposals and cases. The person next to him on the plane asked if he was an attorney. The question haunted him all week.) They begin to attend Presbytery only sporadically. They avoid going to General Assembly. This just means that the lawyers, who love those meetings, consolidate their power.
So what should we do? Fight back? Make sure we attend all those meetings filled with caffeine and testosterone so we can argue well into the night? Then the terrorists will have won. (Whoops. Wrong rant, but you get the idea.) Believe me, the lawyer types have far more stamina for such wranglings. The lengthy disputes that demoralize us fill them with energy. We’ll never beat them at their own game. We’ll starve our sheep and wreck our marriages if we try.
Instead, we need to seek the kind of government that Jesus commends. And I am speaking not only to ministers but everyone in the church (especially in a Presbyterian or Reformed denomination) now. I don’t mean we need to leave our denominations to find Biblical government, though that may be the conclusion for some. I mean we need to beware the leaven of the Pharisees and we need to seek out rulers who look like Christ, washing the feet of his disciples, bearing the cross.
What does it mean to beware the leaven of the Pharisees? It means beware those who like to rule and who seek to do so by giving orders rather than providing an example. Beware the man who loves airing his ideas about how the church ought to run and who pays more attention to those who are influential and prominent in the church. Beware the man who elevates human tradition above the Word of God, who knows his Confession and his Book of Church Order better than he knows his Bible.
If you can peaceably prevent it, don’t allow such people to become deacons or elders in your church. Don’t extend a pastoral call to such a man. Don’t waste too many words on people like this who are already in authority. You won’t out-argue them. Rather, take their presence and their behavior as a symptom of sickness in the church and as a warning to seek a more excellent way.
What does it mean to be a servant and bear the cross? It means to consider the needs of others as more important than your own. It means to seek out especially the weakest, least visible sheep and care for them.
Don’t make deacons out of people simple because they have organizational ability and the sort of sympathy that’s common even to many unbelievers. Go ahead and use their organization talent, but don’t confuse that with spirituality. Make them deacons when they love the sheep sacrificially, without drawing attention to themselves, because they have a deep understanding of the mystery of the Gospel.
Ordain as elders only those who love the sheep sacrificially as well. Don’t let the congregation vote them in with a shrug, or with reservations, or out of a desire not to hurt anyone’s feelings. The congregation must be able to say, “Here is a man who would give his life for me. He will always be gentle toward me. He will rule me by example. And that example will not be a matter of outward piety and ‘good works’ for me to attain to if somehow I may. Rather, that example will be a matter of walking alongside me and teaching me not so much how to behave as how to believe–how to know Christ and rely on him.”
Finally, call as pastors only those of utmost gentleness and humility toward the weak. Remember what Isaiah prophesied concerning the Christ: “a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench” (Isaiah 42:3). Do not accept a pastor who motivates the sheep through guilt or fear, who troubles the assurance of the weaker sheep while giving the self-righteous reason to pat themselves on the back. Rather, find pastors who are utterly gentle with the weak and bold with those who think they are strong.
For those reading this who hold such office, seek always to be conformed to these words of our Savior: “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45). If that doesn’t sound like you, don’t be afraid to turn in your resignation. There will be enough time to take up the office again after you have learned more perfectly to bear the cross.
Who knows? Maybe by pursuing these things we’ll change our congregation or denomination for the better. Or maybe we’ll get kicked out or at least feel forced to leave. If that happens, let’s not make the Presbyterian mistake. Governmental structure should not be our first priority. Let us seek instead an affiliation where those who govern the sheep will be allowed and even encouraged to do so by bearing the cross. If that lands us in another Presbyterian denomination, fine and dandy. If not, at least we chose the one thing necessary. It will not be taken from us.
8 December 2006 at 10:52 am
interesting.
ok. i am currently a deacon in the crc. does any of this sound like me to me? hmmm. if i say yes am i a little self-congratulatory? how’s that for “reformed guilt”? 🙂
zrim
12 December 2006 at 12:27 am
Excellent post… both challenging and encouraging. Thanks, Bill.
16 December 2006 at 4:39 pm
Good to have you back in action, Bill!
“Beware the man who elevates human tradition above the Word of God, who knows his Confession and his Book of Church Order better than he knows his Bible.”
Words that are well-ignored by the establishment, status-quo.
19 December 2006 at 2:57 pm
You have broken me of my refusal to read blogs. My thoughts on this stem from Pr 10:19 – “when words are many, transgression is not lacking” – and Ps 90:12. But I do check certain sites a few times a year to see if they have been updated and when I saw that you now have a blog, I knew there must be something good here.
My college theology professor frequently had remarkable insights into things. One of the things he told us was that it’s not about which form of government a church has, but the character of the men. I still don’t want to put that as strongly as he did, but his point about the godliness of the men is absolutely true.
When I was a Calvinistic Baptist, I started saying “I’m a baptist with a small ‘b’.” This was my way of distinguishing myself from the proud, pot-bellied Baptists; the kind Steve Taylor would sing about in the early 80’s. I was never dogmatic over baptism and never had any admiration for Baptist history as I did for Presbyterian theologians. But now that I’m a Presbyterian, I have discovered that I’m back to saying “I’m a presbyterian with a small ‘p’.” For me that ‘p’ does not stand for polity or presbytery, so I guess I’m only left with paedobaptism.
I’m not a formalist. By that I mean I have no interest in paper work or certain manmade external protocols so long as they do not contradict Scripture. But Presbyterianism seems absorbed in these very things and I believe much of it is a waste of time and detrimental to the church bearing fruit. I get the sense that we’re thinking along the same lines.
I have no emotional ties to Presbyterianism as I do with, say, a view of preaching, worship, etc. The last place in the world I would want to be is at a GA. In fact, I’ve come to hate hearing those letters. Seriously.
Sometimes things suddenly impress themselves upon me. Last Spring I was struck by the pride of evangelicalism. Every where you turn, it seems like all you hear is this church touting their size and that church glorying in their building program. If it makes me sick, how greatly is the Spirit grieved? (Presuming my reasoning is correct.) This excitement about big budgets and popularity defines their success and it is entirely at odds with the wisdom of the cross (1 Cor 1:18-31). We cannot boast in our flesh and claim to preach the humility of grace. Such thinking belongs to the wisdom of this age which is perishing and that God will judge. I’d also be willing to bet that these mega-churches will be empty in 50 years. What’s the use in building impressive buildings when there is no sound faith and love inside?
In fact, another passage in this letter speaks to this. First Corinthians 1—4 is a unit of thought addressing the division of the church over their favorite apostles and in 3:10-17 Paul discusses the divine judgment of the man of God. Sarxic ‘pastors’ who think according to the standards of this world will find that on the last day their ‘ministry’ is burned up and that they will be saved only as through fire. Evangelicalism wants to be happy and have fun like the world (think Ps 73) so the narrow road filled with suffering in a hostile world (think of the lamentation Psalms) is repaved with artificial comforts. But God has chosen those poor in the eyes of the world to believe in Christ (Jas 2:5) and promises glory in the kingdom (1 Pet 5:10). From the bottom of my heart, I feel like I need to be unfaithful to Christ in order to fit in with the church. It’s gotten to the point where I don’t even feel like the church is where I belong anymore because the church has departed so far from what the church really is. If a church isn’t caught up with turning from Christ through legalism (Gal 1:6; 5:4), they go to the other expression of the flesh and are antinomian.
Presbyterianism seems to have the worst of both worlds. They are proud about their polity while increasingly moving toward emulating the shallow waters of evangelicalism.
Lastly, regarding Isaiah 42… I went through church abuse in 1997 and in Jan. of 1998, I gently mentioned Jesus’ use of that passage of himself. This man who had been a pastor for about 15 years honestly told me, “I’ve never heard that before.” We are given to speaking openly when we are in such pain and without realizing the significance of what I was saying, I told him I hoped I would never do to a person what he had done to me (and others). I learned a lot through that experience (Eccl 7:3) and I hope your post has bolstered that commitment in me.
How is it that such a mentality has been worked so deeply into you? Your reading of Scripture? Professors and friends? Experiences in the church?
22 December 2006 at 8:21 pm
dms stated: “For me that ‘p’ does not stand for polity or presbytery, so I guess I’m only left with paedobaptism.”
My thought (mjm): Agreed! Things are not well in reformed circles. Others, who grasp the notion of covenant and kingdom, in their biblico-historical sense, have aptly brought to light the consequence of not soundly understanding these two mutually dependent principles. I believe that what concerns you (and I) are things that find there locus here.
Perhaps then ‘p’ might stand for ‘parousia’? The presence of God? Manifiest only within that which is itself a covenant and essence of the kingdom now? The Gospel! Putting it aside, or circumventing it, has disasterous consequences, and I believe this relates directly to what’s wrong within the church, yes, even reformed ones.
dms also stated: “From the bottom of my heart, I feel like I need to be unfaithful to Christ in order to fit in with the church. It’s gotten to the point where I don’t even feel like the church is where I belong anymore because the church has departed so far from what the church really is. If a church isn’t caught up with turning from Christ through legalism (Gal 1:6; 5:4), they go to the other expression of the flesh and are antinomian.”
Another thought (mjm): Amen! As for these two extremes…I’m given to think they are two sides of the same coin. Actually, it would appear that often times the latter (antinomianism) comes as a result of the former (legalism). Not that folks in the latter group always see the connection to their present stance as being one that commonly originated perhaps a generation or so before as a reaction to the former.
mjmorizio@earthlink.net
http://mjmorizio.blogspot.com
22 December 2006 at 8:55 pm
dms stated: “For me that ‘p’ does not stand for polity or presbytery, so I guess I’m only left with paedobaptism.”
My thought (mjm): Agreed! Things are not well in reformed circles. Others, who grasp the notion of covenant and kingdom, in their biblico-historical sense, have aptly brought to light the consequence of not soundly understanding these two mutually dependent principles. I believe that what concerns you (and I) are things that find there locus here.
Perhaps then ‘p’ might stand for ‘parousia’? The presence of God? Manifiest only within that which is itself a covenant and the essence of kingdom now? That is…the Gospel! Putting it aside, or circumventing it, has disasterous consequences, and I believe this relates directly to what’s wrong within the church, yes, even reformed ones.
dms also stated: “From the bottom of my heart, I feel like I need to be unfaithful to Christ in order to fit in with the church. It’s gotten to the point where I don’t even feel like the church is where I belong anymore because the church has departed so far from what the church really is. If a church isn’t caught up with turning from Christ through legalism (Gal 1:6; 5:4), they go to the other expression of the flesh and are antinomian.”
Another thought (mjm): Amen! As for these two extremes…I’m given to think they are two sides of the same coin. Actually, it would appear that often times the latter (antinomianism) comes as a result of the former (legalism). Not that folks in the latter group always see the connection to their present stance as being one that commonly originated perhaps a generation or so before as a reaction to the former.
(evangelicalism corresponds to fundamentalism, neither of which have failed to make inroads most places, regardless of polity; polity doesn’t ward off either, necessarily, and might even find itself perpetuating matters)
mjmorizio@earthlink.net
http://mjmorizio.blogspot.com
22 December 2006 at 9:04 pm
Sorry, Bill! Please delete the first entry on 12-22-06. Thanks.
1 January 2007 at 5:28 am
Excellent post, Bill. Hope things are well.
22 January 2007 at 12:48 pm
Reminds me of Lee’s trial.
13 February 2007 at 8:06 pm
Having served as a congregational President in a Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod congregation, I got to see how odd Matthew 18 was as a starting point. Over and over again, I would find I was stepping into a situation where it would have saved us a lot of trouble if we had done it earlier (Thus, it is not to be tossed aside.), or I found that it’s value was in preventing people from going into a lynch mob mode.
But any time you even get to where you’re asking questions about Matthew 18, you’re probably well into the trouble.
And when lengthy lawcodes are drawn up, it makes it difficult to follow broad Scriptural admonitions. I remember once having someone attack me for allowing the pastor to speak in a Voters’ Assembly on an issue not on the table. (That was his opinion, anyway.) To my mind, the pastor being an overseer carries more weight than Robert’s Rules of Order. But an enumerated paragraph will often win out over a broad principle that takes some time to explain.
30 March 2008 at 9:28 am
I have been reformed for just over two years and I am sad to say I have already become burnt out on it. I was attracted to it by the good biblical teaching but now I am seeing what it does to people, practically, it makes them hateful and mean.
As far as government goes, all I hear about is, bringing people up on charges on things that you personally do not agree with, one congregation going after another congregation because they do not like the way they do things. “Hey if you don’t like how they do things to bad, mind your own business!” It reminds me of a homeowners association, some group of people somewhere is telling me what I can and cannot do with MY STUFF! Plus I have to pay them to tell me what I can and cannot do with my stuff.
I think Pres. style government, the way it is played out practically, stifles individualism and free thought, but I think that is the point they do not want you thinking for yourself or you might start doing things differently. You won’t accept their indoctrination.
I like reading the original reformers and Presbyterians of old (pre-twentieth century) and really liked them because they do not seem to have the attitudes of the ones that are around today. I think today they have become to political, they have been influenced by recent fads in theology, theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism, Rushdooney and the home school movement, etc. In the originals I find topics like, God saved man out of love, John 3:16 is not avoided, God is offended by man but he satisfied his own wrath, he shows us mercy and grace. Nowadays I hear a lot of talk of “Does God love everybody?” Does God treat the reprobate with love?” “There is not such thing as common grace!!!” “God hates these people!!!” There is a lot of talk about God and how much he hates and since they serve a God of hate they are hateful themselves. I heard a Black Preacher say once that there are not too many Black Presbyterians because they were FOR slavery!
It would be nice to find a church that does not shy away from good biblical teaching just so that the pews will be full, a nice balance between good theology and nice people. What happened to “Speak the truth in love?”