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.)
September 4th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
So, SGM DOES espouse plurality of elders and the whole “first among equals” concept. Yet, this has not prevented them from having some overly authoritarian senior pastors and elders. Why is that? Perhaps the problem lies in the process by which the elders are chosen and trained. It seems SGM is so careful about each new elder being on the same page with SGM doctrines in heart, mind and manner of living, that these elders can tend to lose their individuality and end up looking very much like yes men (or clones). I also do think it is a red flag that so many new pastors are sons, sons-in-law, nephews, etc. of existing SGM leaders.
If you end up with so many men who are like-minded to an improper degree, you lose the accountability built in to this type of church polity. IMO
September 4th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Gracie,
The espouse it, but there is clearly no Biblical co-equality in SGM. The little “modifiers” ensure that. I’ll get to that portion of Harvey’s statement soon.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“14. Grudem, 925-926. (Sovereign Grace believes that it is apostolic ministry, not the congregation, which selects and ordains elders for the local church.)”
I am simply dumbfounded at the audacity of quoting someone to prove a point while thumbing your nose at the same time in regard to their stand on polity. Reasons why Harvey departs on Grudem at this point could be a volume in and of itself (hmmmmm…).
…pk
September 4th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Are there any ways SGM claims on paper to insure that non-SP elders or even members can correct the SP without getting removed? On paper are only those in “Apostolic Ministry” allowed to correct the SP?
It would be good to point out clearly any differences between what the polity is on paper and what it is in practice.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Hi MR:
“It would be good to point out clearly any differences between what the polity is on paper and what it is in practice.”
You’re right, MR… a lot of that is done largely via the testimony and comments on these websites. I’ve said before, and I still maintain that if one is even king of the skeptics, and even only 5-10% of these stories are true, it’s enough to warrant a top to bottom reform within my beloved SGM.
“Are there any ways SGM claims on paper to insure that non-SP elders or even members can correct the SP without getting removed?”
Not that I know of. If this isn’t true, then someone in LurkerLand please correct me with verifiable specifics.
…pk
September 4th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
“This paper presents a narrow look at some ingredients that form the foundation for local-church”
I’m dying here! It’s one of the funnier things I’ve read today. Narrow look? Do they have any other way of looking at things?
September 4th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Great post Jim…I couldn’t agree more with this statement:
“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.”
As you an PK have both said so often, polity is THE central issue. Until they address it, so many other issues are incapable of being addressed.
Keep up the good work, guys.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
EX,
Thanks Ryan. Good to see you here. I bet you miss storm season already.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:49 am
exintern/Ryan:
Thanks, much appreciated!
…pk
September 5th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Oh yeah, I miss storm season a ton. I was just saying to Fallon, “boy, I wish it was 94 and muggy here so I could feel more at home.” (The entire first two weeks we were here in Boston it was about 68 degrees and sunny. Not to tempt anyone to jealousy…)
Maybe in February I’ll lose that sarcastic tone when talking about missing Florida…
September 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
That’s what I’m thinking….
September 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Hey guys,
Can I ask a question? When you say that polity is THE central issue, it goes without saying that allowing the Holy Spirit free reign in the governing of churches is paramount, right? Because, without our Lord being free to guide His people, even a group of Elders leading the flock can go wrong, eventually. Should I just assume that is a given here? Thanks.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Hi Canary,
My view is this-the first century church was clearly led by the Apostles. There is no Biblical warrant for apostolic succession, which is the basis for the episcopal (bishop led) form of government. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalian/Anglican all hold to the principle of apostolic succession.
When the Apostles died, their leadership was replaced by the Epistles-the written word of the Apostles, which is the Word of God.
I agree that man can and often will go wrong. I think an obvious conclusion is that it’s far easier for one, unaccountable man to go off course than it is for a co equal, mutually accountable group of men, who are also accountable to the congregation, to stray from the rule of Scripture.
This is the preferred form of government for those who have a high view of the perspicuity of Scripture
Men like Wayne Grudem, who states that his view of perspicuity informs his view of polity.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Jim.
I see what you are saying, and I do agree. My question refers to the quenching of the Holy Spirit that I saw in leadership at PDI/SGM. The whole problem even in having a few leaders was that, if we felt one way about a personal decision and they felt another, we were not supported. God does speak to the individual. In discussing church government, we have to protect that freedom. I think it is also important that the Body is allowed to pray over and make decisions with the Elders on certain matters. Also, if Christ is the Head of the the church, then those who are Elders should be hearing Him, correct? There is a way for the Body to be unified on even difficult decisions if all members are taught to seek God’s heart on the matter. This is unity. In SGM, decisions that were large, involving great financial commitment on the part of its members, were made by only one or two men. Certainly there has to be a balance, a seeking of the Holy Spirit by the whole group so that all may be in unity. In teaching plurality of Elders, we have to also protect our individual freedom in Christ. Many of us gave up that freedom in SGM, and will never do that again.
Just some thoughts. Sorry to interrupt the flow. Carry on!
September 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Canary-we enjoy and appreciate your “interruptions”.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Thanks, Jim.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Again, we could elaborate on how funny SGM’s self-definition as “Reformed” is in light of the things Jim pointed out.
Unfortunately though, here, the oddnesses are more than just theological incosistencies: they are the evidences of a model of church government that is, at its core, nothing else than a pragmatic and business-type leadership model. Efficiency, not faithfulness, is what dictates SGM’s practice on this issue, however little they are aware of it, and however decoratively they use biblical terms.
Their model could be applied, in many ways, to any other sect or esoteric program, and to many branches of businesses and franchises without having to be changed much at all. That limits their witness to the world to mere words out of their mouths, and forsakes the calling to live together in a way that is odd according to the world: to every business manager used to suburban economical structures in America, the SGM model would sound just perfect.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
canary saith: “The whole problem even in having a few leaders was that, if we felt one way about a personal decision and they felt another, we were not supported…In teaching plurality of Elders, we have to also protect our individual freedom in Christ. Many of us gave up that freedom in SGM, and will never do that again.”
This really nails the issue, which is the church version of what the colonists faced in the 1770s. When trusted leaders become leaders who no longer accept or accommodate outside input or counsel – particularly from others who have better first-hand experience with issues under discussion – then leadership tends toward tyranny.
SGM churches are set up, from the start, as an organization that self-selects its leaders, and limits church leadership to those leaders. I would guess that the typical SGM church has no, or very few, all-members meetings at which issues can be aired/discussed. I’m sure I can say no SGM church allows all-member voting on issues! So from the outset, there is an inordinant amount of trust that members must extend to leaders, and very few avenues of discussion available – certainly no church-sanctioned public avenues of discussion.
Perhaps this was done at the beginning because of the Shepherding Movement, or perhaps because of the desire to circumvent the tendency in American churches to have paralysis-by-committee, and having leaders held hostage to laity control (often unconverted lay members, in particular). But the system they set up concentrates power solely in a few people, and there is no way to work within their system to challenge those few people from outside their own leadership circle.
I really wonder how clearly any of this is explained in the prospective-members classes. I would think many people would go elsewhere, if they were told clearly that they truly would have no means to speak into the system, no means of voting or changing direction of the church, no means of determining/assessing the uses to which tithes and offerings are put, no means of becoming a “leader” other than as a pastor, and no means (again, outside of the leadership) to eject an abusive leader.
As others have pointed out, SGM’s own emphasis on the supposed ongoing corruption of the fallen nature itself argues against establishing such a system, and against that system’s chance of success.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I used to be very clear when I taught pre-membership classes.
“Around here, you vote with your feet”.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
The comment-editor won’t let me edit my comment above, so I’m going to add something here that I wanted to insert there:
This SGM system, which concentrates total leadership authority in a few, self-chosen people, is totally against the American expression of representative democracy, or the New England tradition of direct, town-meeting democracy. But then, SGM has always been rather proud of its churches not being democracies. Back in the 80s – when Christianity Today ran an article that attempted to link PDI with the Dominion Theology of Rushdoony et al – CLC pastors never noted American patriotic holidays as anything worthy of discussion from the pulpit. There were never any teachings that discussed the Christian roots of America – certainly none that described how American civil government was influenced by English-Puritan attempts to restrain the monarch (who “stood in the very stead of God,” remember) and unelected officials. When the CLC building was opened in 1993, there was no American flag on the platform. (Is there one, in 2008?)
September 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Fam said:
Efficiency, not faithfulness, is what dictates SGM’s practice on this issue, however little they are aware of it, and however decoratively they use biblical terms.
Ain’t that the truth!
Keep,
I’ve noticed the democracy thing as well. We would never allow our government to tell us where to live, how to pray, not to have prayer meetings without supervision, take our money and not give us a say in how it is handled (oh wait, that’s the IRS). We wouldn’t tolerate being told we can’t hold a job if we’re women, we can’t use our gifts if we’re women, we can’t speak to an official with our opinion on how he is running things, and we certainly would vote that official out of office if we felt he was inept! Man, this could go on and on. Yet, we willingly give all this up and more when we sign a membership form from SGM or any other authoritarian church. We submit to men our dearest freedoms in Christ.
In PDI, there was no America outside our church walls. During the first gulf war, we arrived at our HG leader’s house a little early and watched the news with a few others. There was a reporter on who wore a helmet. At one point he ducked because he heard bombing. My HG leader shook his head as though the whole thing was pathetic, and turned off the TV. Yet, that war effected all of us! So yes, Keep, what you said is right on:
This SGM system, which concentrates total leadership authority in a few, self-chosen people, is totally against the American expression of representative democracy…
September 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Hm… I think that is actually one of the strengths of SGM: it has made more attempts not to confuse the two kingdoms than many others in American evangelicalism. The mixing up of politics and faith is one of the greatest messes of American Protestantism, in my opinion.
That, though, does not change the strange fact that SGM, in many ways, is only thinkeable as an American organisations: as I have pointed out above, the business-leader-market-based model of polity would not only have been unthinkeable to the Reformers SGM claims to stand upon, it is also unthinkeable in denominations that have endured the tests of time.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Fam,
“to every business manager used to suburban economical structures in America, the SGM model would sound just perfect.”
…Except that even corporations have boards of directors voted in by the shareholders. The point is well taken, though.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Jim:
You said in your post: “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…”
You couldn’t digress enough about this, because technically TAG/People of Destiny/PDI/SGM has had three decades to work on this one.
Keep digressing…
…pk
September 5th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
“nothing else than a pragmatic and business-type leadership model. Efficiency, not faithfulness, is what dictates SGM’s practice on this issue”
Famagusta, I hear what you’re saying, but I have to say you are being much too generous to SGM by saying that “to every business manager used to suburban economical structures in America, the SGM model would sound just perfect.” From some of the things I know/knew, if anyone ran my business like SGM is run, I would fire their butts so quickly. They THINK they run things efficiently and like big business, but if they had to run on efficienct business the company wouldn’t last long. I was time and again shocked at the inept business practices and decisions I saw carried out. If these same poor decisions would have been applied to a business it would have folded quickly. Fortunately in many ways it is a good ministry, helps many people and teaches tithing.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
exintern, stunned,
yes indeed;) My hyperbole came back like a boomerang… glad you the point though: what SGM works on is a business model geared for effectiveness, similar to a franchise company, couched in terms from the buffet of church building pragmatism, conservative evangelicalism and out-of-context biblicism.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“to every business manager used to suburban economical structures in America, the SGM model would sound just perfect.”
Perhaps this is an oversimplification;
Any business exist for its customers. A company that forgets that will soon die. I think that Enron is a good, albeit catastrophic example, where a chosen few had the positions, and power, to exercise a form of self preservation that left the rest of it’s membership out in the cold.
In the SGM model, the person is secondary, as the primary purpose seems to be the growth and health of the institution. This, in turn, ensures the position and status of those chosen to lead, own, and operate. (I would agree that the polity is the root.)
The mere fact that a church or ministry fits into a business model so easily, is disturbing. Add to that the Polity document, which at best is a square peg trying to fit into the round hole of scripture, (perhaps also trying to convince us that the hole is, nor ever really was round), and you have a catastrophe waiting to happen.
I too have heard the statement, “People vote with their feet.” Seems that this is a nice way of saying “We won’t change, if you don’t like our terms, find someone else”
To me this is so far off from the self sacrificing example of our savior it makes me want to cry.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Christopher,
Very well said. Right on the nail.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I have been one to always believe in there needing to be a plurality of elders and not one person having all or being the “senior position.”
Throughout the NT where we are instructed to “obey” leadership the term used is a plural vs. singular. I am not aware of passages that say to submit to your leader (singlular). Of course even the Greek work that is translated “obey” has a different meaning then what what one would assume with the word “obey.”
Ironically early (late 1970’s) in SGM’s history, the leadership of what was called Gathering of Believers (later to become Covenant Life Church) indicated that they felt there should be no senior position. I remember Mahaney saying that they felt that there should not be one senior position but rather an equal group of men.
Later the group departed from this belief. Tomczak originally was the Sr. Pastor of CLC and then later Mahaney became the Sr. Pastor.
Does anyone know if CLC/SGM has ever explained their change in actions on what they said they believed at one time?
September 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Christopher, IT IS an oversimplification. I am pleasantly surprised by your desire for coherent arguments in here
Thank you for the add-on – right on!
‘The mere fact that a church or ministry fits into a business model so easily, is disturbing.’
It is disturbing, and it is beyond my comprehension WHY in the world someone like Dever or Duncan don’t get that SGM has become nothing else than a mainstream business-church-model on doctrinal steroids.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Christopher-
I’ve shed some tears over SGM…for myself and for those who have become more hard hearted than when I first knew them…
September 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
MM,
Same here. It was so hard to leave the people we loved, and harder to see what they were becoming, especially leadership.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Jim:
You actually taught ”
“Around here, you vote with your feet”.
How did they let you get away with that?