See the story here
PK and I are tag-team posting about SGM Polity. Think of it as two boats traveling down the same river. PK’s a sleek luxury liner, and I’m-well, you know by now what I am.
You can view SGM’s current leadership structure here
Dave Harvey states in SGM’s Polity booklet (numbers in bold red indicate “Endnotes” placed by Harvey with their identical numbers as presented in Polity:
This paper presents a narrow look at some ingredients that form the foundation for local-church polity within Sovereign Grace Ministries. While it is only introductory, it should provide the reader with a sufficient understanding of the theology behind our methodology. The Sovereign Grace Ministries apologetic stands upon a tripod of principles that lift and support our local-church government:
1) The Principle of Plurality Among Elders 5
2) The Principle of the Presiding Pastor
3) The Principle of Partnership with Apostolic Ministry
My first thought would be that since this statement is “only introductory”, perhaps 4 1/2 years after the publication of this introduction, it might be a good time for SGM to further define their form of government. But I digress…
The Principle of Plurality Among Elders obviously has the strongest Scriptural support of the 3 principles, with 17 verses or passages referenced in Addendum 1 that specifically address the Biblical model of multiple elders. Addendum 1 also includes Scriptural support for the plurality of deacons, which is interesting. Why build a strong Biblical case for an office you don’t recognize, as the office of deacon has no place in your polity?
Although there can be no argument that there is strong Scriptural support for The Principle of Plurality Among Elders, Harvey still feels the need to spend 4 pages selling the concept, including the seven point outline below. Harvey says:
Why is Plurality a Central Feature for Local-Church Government Within Sovereign Grace Ministries?
1) Because it is strongly supported in Scripture (see Addendum 1).
2) Because it embodies the New Testament principle of the interdependence and diversity of gifts among members of Christ’s body (Romans 12:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12)
3) Because it disseminates the authority and responsibility for the church to more than one person, thereby protecting both the church and the elder.
It is important to note that the entire eldership is entrusted with the responsibility to govern and lead the church, not simply the senior pastor.11 In other words, the responsibility inheres in the group, not the man.12 That God assigns the responsibility to a group is not a new approach to church polity, for it has long been the practice and approach of our Reformed brethren. In describing this approach, Wayne Grudem reminds his readers that the session (the body of elders in a Reformed church) holds the actual governing authority for the local church: “In this system, each local church elects elders to a session.13 The pastor of the church will be one of the elders in the session, equal in authority to the other elders. This session has governing authority over the local church”14 (emphasis mine [Harvey]).
Indeed, Berkhof goes a step further by indicating that it is the Reformed practice of co-equality among elders that distinguishes their polity from other groups. He writes,
Reformed churches differ, on the one hand, from all those churches in which the government is in the hands of a single prelate or presiding elder, and on the other hand, from those in which it rests with the people in general. They do not believe in any one man rule, be he an elder, a pastor, or a bishop; neither do they believe in popular government. They choose ruling elders as their representatives, and these, together with the minister(s), form a council or consistory for the government of the local church.15
4) Because no one elder possesses the full complement of gifts that God uses to bless and build the church.
5) Because it creates a structure where men must model the unity that should ultimately characterize the church (John 17:23; Romans 15:5; Ephesians 4:3, 13; Colossians 3:14).
6) Because it creates a “multitude of counselors” (Pr 15:22; 24:6) for leading and guiding the church.
7) Because it creates a defined venue of accountability for life and doctrine among the leaders (1Timothy 4:16; Titus 1:6; James 5:16).
Thanks Dave. I was sold by the Scriptural evidence in Addendum 1.
You’ll note that the polity document is a footnote-fest. I’ve left Harvey’s endnote references in the text, and will include the corresponding references at the end of this post. To write in a fashion that requires the reader to constantly flip back and forth between 20-30 pages to see what one really means is at best cumbersome, and at worst, disingenuous. Endnotes are best used to site one’s references-not to say what you really mean.
In the passage above, it’s hard to understand why Harvey quotes Grudem and Berkhof, while including footnotes that disagree with their conclusions.
I’ll end here for now, and suggest that this should be where SGM ends in defining their polity. This is the only thoroughly Biblical component in the way SGM governs their churches.
To quote Harvey quoting Grudem: The pastor of the church will be one of the elders in the session, equal in authority to the other elders.
To see SGM employ a Biblical model of plurality, with co-equal elders, would not only bring joy to hearts of the many members of SGM who have taken the time to explore what Scripture has to say about how we govern our churches, but would also greatly reduce the spiritual abuse caused by unaccountable SGM CEO Sr Pastors.
———————————————————–
Endnotes (Harvey, 29-30):
(The notes in bold and blue in color at this point and below are simply to indicate what specific works Harvey has referenced according to Polity’s Bibliography. Everything else is written by Harvey)
5. In the New Testament, the term “elder” is presented as an office to which a gifted man is appointed based on his character qualities. Although there are several descriptive references for this role, such as bishop and pastor, it appears that Scripture often uses elder, overseer, and pastor interchangeably. Note the synonymous use of these words by Paul, Peter & Luke in Titus 1:5-7, 1 Peter 5:1-2 and Acts 20:28.
11. The apologetic for senior pastor is contained in the discussion of the next principle. (for this discussion, see Harvey, 6-17)
12. “Today, whatever form of church government a church may have, the officers who have the highest governing authority in the local church (whether they are called elders, pastors, deacons, the vestry, the church board, the governing council, or any other name) are the ones who most closely correspond to the office of elder at the time of the New Testament. They do in fact have governing authority (of varying degrees) in their churches.” Patterson, 256.
(The above reference is taken from Paige Patterson’s “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. 248-262. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991.)
13. While Samuel Miller omits any reference to apostolic care, he accurately represents the classical Reformed position in saying, “And as the whole spiritual government of each church is committed to its bench of elders, the session is competent to regulate every concern, and to correct everything which they consider amiss in the arrangements or affairs of the church which admits of correction.” Miller, 15.
(The above reference is taken from Samuel Miller’s The Ruling Elder. 2d ed., 1994; Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1984.)
14. Grudem, 925-926. (Sovereign Grace believes that it is apostolic ministry, not the congregation, which selects and ordains elders for the local church.)
(The above reference is taken from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Harper Collins, 1994.)
15. Berkhof, 589.
(The above reference is taken from Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, 4th rev. ed. Reprint 1986; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941.)
Hello Beloved:
I’d like to kick off a vital discussion here at SGM Refuge by introducing a series on the subject of church polity.
Jim and I can’t seem to have any conversation without it turning to this subject, as so many ills in our churches –within and without SGM’s oversight– stem from a poor foundation or implementation of polity. This statement sounds rather judgmental, like it steps outside the bounds of sober issue analysis… but this is the church, beloved, the Bride of Christ… the one He will return for.
When many of us have asked questions about the form of church government practiced in Sovereign Grace Ministries-affiliated churches, we are handed Dave Harvey’s 54-page work on Polity. It should be noted the primary text or manuscript is on pages 1-28, while Endnotes, Three Addendums and a Bibliography take up the remaining 26 pages.
A couple of years ago, I remember reading an astoundingly self-absorbed blog authored by an editor from Big Name Christian Publisher. One of his entries expressed a whiny, nose-in-the-air-eye-rolling-sighing sentiment that he was “so tired” of pastors opening their messages with Webster’s definition of a word.
I’d like to dedicate the opening of our series on polity to him, by quoting old school Webster:
”Were the whole Christian world to revert back to the original model, how far more simple, uniform and beautiful would the church appear, and how far more agreeable to the ecclesiastical polity instituted by the holy apostles.” –comment under “polity” in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
———-
POLITY Episode 1: Who is Dave Harvey’s Phantom Menace?
In his Polity: Serving and Leading in the Local Church (which is part 2 [March 2004] of the Perspectives series by Sovereign Grace Ministries), early on (p. 2) Dave Harvey quotes Wayne Grudem from Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Harper Collins, 1994):
…At the outset it must be said that the form of church government is not a major doctrine like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, or the authority of Scripture… And church history attests that several different forms of government have worked fairly well for several centuries… It seems to me, then, that there ought to be room for evangelical Christians to differ amicably over this question, in the hope that further understanding may be gained (Grudem, 904 as quoted in Harvey, 2).
Harvey then immediately asserts:
Tempered by the wisdom of Grudem’s maturity and civility, we resist all impulses to canonize our polity (Harvey, 2).
I think we should go a little further in mining the wisdom of Dr. Grudem by simply doing justice to his chapter titled “Church Government” in Systematic Theology.
Here is that paragraph again, in its entirety, with the missing chunks in bold as well as the preceding paragraph and the paragraph following it (all in bold, as well) so that we may look at its proper context:
Is there a New Testament pattern for church government? Is any one form of church government to be preferred over another? These are the questions addressed in this chapter.
However, at the outset it must be said that the form of church government is not a major doctrine like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, or the authority of Scripture. Although I believe, after examining the New Testament evidence, that one particular form of church government is preferable to the others, nevertheless, each form has some weaknesses as well as strengths. And church history attests that several different forms of government have worked fairly well for several centuries. Moreover, while some aspects of church government seem to be reasonably clear from the New Testament, other matters (such as the way in which church officers should be chosen) are less clear, mainly because the New Testament evidence on them is not extensive, and thus our inferences from this evidence are less certain. It seems to me then, that there ought to be room for evangelical Christians to differ amicably over this question, in the hope that further understanding may be gained. And it also seems that individual Christians –while they may have a preference for one system over another– should nevertheless be willing to live and minister within any of several different Protestant systems of church government in which they may find themselves from time to time.
But I do not mean to say that this is an entirely unimportant matter. In this area as well as others, a church may be more or less pure. If there are clear New Testament patterns regarding some aspects of church government, then there will be negative consequences in our churches if we disregard them, even if we cannot foresee all of those consequences at the present time. Therefore Christians are certainly free to speak and write on this subject in order to work for increased purity in the church (Grudem 904-905, with missing words and segments in bold).
My beloved brothers and sisters in Christ who are fellow members of SGM churches, Please note: That last sentence above is our goal here. Read it again… read it thirty times, if you have to. Dave Harvey does not have the final word on church polity. In the spirit of Dr. Grudem’s observation, you are free to speak and write on this subject in order to work for increased purity in the church.
I think the missing segments from Harvey’s quotation of Grudem can form a general, episodic outline for our series and discussion here:
(1) Grudem believes “…after examining the New Testament evidence… one particular form of church government is preferable to the others, nevertheless, each form has some weaknesses as well as strengths.”
(2) Grudem also states, “Moreover, while some aspects of church government seem to be reasonably clear from the New Testament, other matters (such as the way in which church officers should be chosen) are less clear, mainly because the New Testament evidence on them is not extensive, and thus our inferences from this evidence are less certain.
(3) Additionally, Grudem exhorts, “And it also seems that individual Christians –while they may have a preference for one system over another– should nevertheless be willing to live and minister within any of several different Protestant systems of church government in which they may find themsleves from time to time.”
(4) And finally, Grudem warns, “But I do not mean to say that this is an entirely unimportant matter. In this area as well as others, a church may be more or less pure. If there are clear New Testament patterns regarding some aspects of church government, then there will be negative consequences in our churches if we disregard them, even if we cannot foresee all of those consequences at the present time.”
It seems to me that Harvey’s slimmed-down version of Grudem’s quote is an attempt to disarm any objections to what Harvey is about to lay out before us; His work, Polity, creates an unnecessary phantom menace of sorts in regard to those who question it or churches who operate radically different from SGM churches… particularly any of us in the flock who admire and respect Dr. Grudem’s work and would like to see him quoted in context on such an important matter. That being the case, I think we should look at Harvey’s work in the light of Dr. Grudem’s Systematic Theology, since Harvey feels free to quote from this volume –albeit vastly edited, it seems– in order to posture a “mature and civil” stand to “resist all impulses to canonize our (SGM) polity.” We’ll also get some thoughts from the best brains at SGM, many of whom I greatly respect even though I personally may part ways with them on issues from time to time. We’ll also get input from ordinary guys like Louis Berkhof, John MacArthur and such, all the while –it is my hope and prayer– tempering this with the primacy of Holy Scripture.
Polity is important, whether you want to assign importance to it or not. If we do not want to forsake the gathering with our fellow saints, then we must go above and beyond just playing church and acknowledge our vast dependence on the Gospel… that is, polity must be informed by the Glory of God, of which the center pillar is the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension and return of Jesus Christ. It must be informed by the guys who started (stumbled through) it: Peter, Paul and Company (bet you thought I was gonna say Mary), acting upon the instructions of their Lord and Savior, with the help of the ultimate Helper (who still helps us today, contrary to some polls), the Holy Spirit… and as impossible as it may seem, we must bring the Holiness of God to bear on all of this.
I look forward to going into the trenches of the Theological Death Star on this, and with God’s power taking the enemy of our souls to task for his exploitation of sin that mars this discussion.
Page Views for August: 118112
Total since June 7 launch: 259313
Where have we heard that before?
First some background. Carole and I walked into this endeavor with our eyes wide open. Much thought, much prayer, much counting the cost. I’ve had a few conversations with the guy I call my blog mentor, who runs the very high traffic Phoenix Preacher blog. Micheal has given me a ton of advice. Two very practical points were-get a team behind you praying. I believe we have that here, and are so very grateful! A second point was-get some help. This one threw me. Who? Where? How? Micheal encouraged me to trust God.
Somewhere around 2 months after we launched, this guy-Protestant Knight shows up on the blogs. We find ourselves agreeing with everything he says, and admire his heart for God, and his heart for SGM.
Like ours. For SGM.
PK knows more about SGM than I ever will. I see his comments here and on Survivors and want to make them posts. We get to know each other, spend hours on the phone. I hear his story, hear his heart, and ask God, could this be the guy?
Our conversation began as a request from me to occasionally use his comments as posts, and evolved into a partnership.
I’m thrilled and so grateful to announce that SGM Refuge is no longer “Jim and Carole’s blog”.
SGM Refuge is now hosted by Jim, Carole, and Protestant Knight. PK is not a guest host-he’s an administrator and moderator. A full partner. We are elated!
The addition will be very helpful on a number of fronts, but his current participation in Sovereign Grace Ministries and his long term relationship with them gives him a perspective we don’t have. Carole and I were only in SGM for 7 years, and my eyes glaze over when the conversation turns to Larry Tomczak , as everything I know about him, I’ve learned in the last few months.
I’ll let PK tell you about himself.
___________________________________________________________
Although you may not realize it, this is a pro-SGM website.
Jim and Carole love the members of Sovereign Grace Ministries churches, from top to bottom, otherwise they wouldn’t blog like this. They are family. They have entered the harsh realm of having to tell their spiritual siblings hard things to hear and see –some of it their own experience– and to balance this with Holy Scripture. This must be done so that the burdens of legalism can be laid down… this blog tries to untie the seemingly impossible, massive knot of sanctification and salvation… this blog has the thankless task of spotlighting hypocrisy, within and without… this blog is an ongoing conversation in the pursuit of the glory of God through reform… this is why I have linked arms with Jim and Carole.
Why else am I here? because I love the Lord.
I love the Lord, because He called me. I love the Lord, because He renewed my mind. I love the Lord, because when I cried out for Him to save me, it was only after I heard Him calling for me in that cave, that well of darkness. I was lost, and He found me.
I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. It is not I, but Christ that lives in me… and this life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God… who loved me, and gave Himself, for me.
If you were to read Psalm 116 and Psalm 73, you would be reading a significant chunk of my testimony.
Above all else, is the glory of God. John Piper contends (successfully, I might add) that God is the Gospel.
So what does a blog that is critical of Sovereign Grace Ministries have to do with the glory of God? I think we have to start with the question, “What does Sovereign Grace Ministries have to do with the glory of God?” You don’t defend a movement or ministry because you’ve grown up in it, like me. You don’t vehemently defend practices because the prefix “biblical” has been added –or retrofitted– to a prescribed practice, like I’ve done. The words from the mouth of our leaders are only “biblical” if they square solidly with scripture. This is lived out by searching the scripture ourselves, as the Bereans did… by testing all things, and holding fast to that which is true… by being ready in season and out of season, whether it is convenient or inconvenient, to give a reason, an answer for the hope that lives within us. That answer is ultimately God, and nothing else.
That answer can never be “Well, there’s this wonderful church I go to…”
It’s because I’ve seen and heard that answer given first that I am here… because at one time, to my shame, I gave that answer first.
I don’t blog here to to pile wrath and malice onto the place I grew up in, but to do the opposite: Remain pro-SGM in a way that seeks reform, to love and respect leaders by balancing their life and words with the scriptures… and this is quite fearful at times for me… God has to constantly remind me that He is not the Spirit of fear, but of peace, love and a sound mind.
God is the Gospel. He is the reason for the hope that lives within us, and not because that life in this gated community we call church seems wonderful and comfortable. We do not serve because leaders tickle our ears with “peace, peace.” Playing church means getting dirty. If the Gospel beats within the heart of an SGM-affiliated church, the words, “This church isn’t for everyone,” should never be uttered again! We are his bride, and we should close our doors to nobody whom He has called!
My wife (call her Protestant Dame ) and I have two decades of life in SGM, with a seven year gap of when we were not attending an SGM church (due in part to geography). The roots run deep. I’ve left my helmet on here because, in the current atmosphere at SGM, leadership does not take kindly to criticism of how they handle their sheep. And so I pray.
And fight.
I think i read Ivanhoe too much as a boy.
I am hidden, and many may judge me a coward for currently not wholly revealing myself. I long for the day I can remove my helmet, but I have to fully realize it may be like the knight Desdecado’s revelation that he was, in fact, Wilfred of Ivanhoe. Ivanhoe’s father then turns his back on him, disgusted that Ivanhoe has defied him by leaving home to participate in the Crusades. Dad is further angered by Ivanhoe’s idealism in seeking the restoration of the Black Knight himself, King Richard the Lionhearted. While Richard himself is away at the Crusades, his rule has been usurped by his crafty and cruel brother John.
I want Christ restored as the head of Sovereign Grace Ministries, no matter how many people it offends or angers. I want our Starbucks blueprint of planting churches to be brought to an end. I want websites named after men to be renamed… and that those men would realize they are a puff of smoke, a fart in the wind compared to the eternal majesty of the Lord of hosts, and that Christ’s name is the only name to be elevated. I want the homeschooled and public-schooled and just the plain schooled to live together and not be polarized into a caste system like they currently are. I want Christ’s name and commands to be honored by going into all of the world with His Gospel.
God is the Gospel…
and I want my King back!
…pk
Loading ...
