I have no idea whether or not CJ addressed what’s going on at MLC yesterday, as I only listened to a short part of the message. What I have is MLC’s account of what was said on June 6, posted below, with some editing. MLC stated the unedited version in front of children and guests on a Sunday morning, then sent the unedited text below to the Florida pastors and to MLC home group leaders.

___________

DJ: We have a serious situation that we need to make you aware of today. It would have been much more preferable to have been able to share this with you in the context of a family meeting but the circumstances have prevented that.

If you are our guest this morning or are new to the church, I would want you to know that we are a spiritual family. It is our sincere desire, when we go through difficult situations as a church family, to handle them in the most biblical and God-honoring way that we can. What you are witnessing this morning is a demonstration of our love and care for one another.

MN:  Church, this morning I’ve got some news that’s connected with our family that I’d like to share with you. Today is my youngest son J’s last Sunday with us. This week, he will travel to Virginia, where he will begin a new job. As many of you would know, this is the only church home J has ever had.

In addition to that, on the following week, Saturday June 19th, J will be getting married. Now, I know that’s a lot of news to digest at one time, but there is more for me to share. These major events in J’s life are significantly tempered by the fact that_______ _____________.

We’ve known about this situation for several months now, and have been in very close contact with the _____________, as well as the pastoral team in the Sovereign Grace church there.
Obviously, this has been one of the most difficult and trying seasons for us as a family. But walking through this has caused me to examine more closely than ever my life and ministry. L and I have been examining our parenting. A key issue in all of this is our lack of listening to the patient voices of friends, leaders and members of this church that have appealed to us for a long time.

Scripture is clear that one of the qualifications for serving as an elder in a local church is this: “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”

We as a church, and I personally, take this passage very seriously. Over these last several weeks our leadership team as well as homegroup leaders and other members of the church have had many long and difficult discussions about this situation, about my parenting, and how it affects my role as an elder of this church. Our local leadership team has been patient with me as I’ve wrestled with my own sins in my parenting, and believe me that are several that I’m owning: laziness in my parenting, pride reflected in my love of reputation, and not listening to the council of others.

I don’t believe I’m seeing all I need to see at this point, but I’m trusting the Lord to open my eyes in the season ahead to all that He intends to reveal to me and us as we continue to seek him.

All concerned have been gracious to me and my family, and I greatly appreciate that. Our home group leaders have been carrying us in their hearts since they’ve heard the news and I’m very grateful for their care, concern, and prayers for us.

I’m grateful to God most of all because I see this as His kindness towards me to continue the work of conforming me into His image. I’m affected daily by the Gospel, as I preach it to myself, and benefit from the precious Truth that it is.

The good news is that J and X have confessed their sin and are moving aggressively towards the Lord in this season.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that If you have any observations for me and L concerning our parenting, or any other areas in our lives , please don’t hesitate to come to us and share them. And while this certainly is a difficult and challenging situation for us, please know that we definitely desire your prayers! Thank you.

DJ: Providentially, we had already set aside a week for prayer and fasting June 20-26. The details are in your bulletin but we’d also like to call the church together on that Wednesday night, the 23rd for a night for all of us to be able to pray together.

As we’ve walked through this situation with the N family here, as well as the family and leadership in (the young lady’s church), we’ve also been in close contact with Dave Harvey and CJ for council from these men who give extra-local care to our church. Some of the other pastors among our churches here in FL have been helping us as all. What a joy to not be independent and on our own at a time like this!

We do ask that you abstain for sharing this information in electronic forums such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs because our purpose in sharing it with you is redemptive, not just informational. The Scripture gives us clear direction in Galatians 6:1 – “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.”

In this verse, the spiritual ones are those in whom the Spirit of God dwells, not a super-spiritual class of Christian. We are called to restore our brother in a spirit of gentleness. At the same time, let this be a sober warning to us all of the need to keep watch on ourselves.

We also ask for your prayer as we process the implications of this for M as an elder of this local church – which is the reason this needed to be brought to the entire church.

As soon as the N’s return from the wedding in _______, we will be walking M through a season of evaluation and discipline. It will be a time that is motivated by a desire to posture M to humbly receive all the Lord has for him.

Remember, discipline is redemptive – it is “proof” of our sonship. M will be relieved of his pastoral duties for a season for the purpose of seeking the Lord, spending time with his family and the study of
Scripture – particularly as it pertains to this situation.

We are planning a church-wide family meeting to follow up on all this with you as well as update you on the changes and responses that have been and are being made as a result of our recent season of assessment.

So please pray! The pastors, leaders, friends and family affected by this sin are humbling themselves before the Lord and seeking His face.

And now, let’s pray for the family and for J as we send him off to a new season of life.

_______________________________

I still have the same questions. Why is a pastor held accountable for the actions of his adult son, whose covering is Christ, not dad?

If this is the oral law at MLC, why did Danny get a pat on the back from CJ, and a promotion when his adult sinned in a way that although similar (sort of), was much more serious in regards to those effected by it?

I really don’t get it…

You have another pastor whose adult son gets in trouble and dad has to step down?

Is the hypocrisy not crystal clear?

I understand that you’re under a gag order-”no facebook, twitter, or blogging”, but I want to give you the opportunity to share your thoughts here. No details please, as everyone already knows the issues at hand and discretion will serve everyone involved. Many of you already know that sharing your thoughts with MLC staff will probably result in a “MLC might not be the church for you” conversation, which in many parts of SGM land has replaced table turning.

My question is, are you seriously OK with the double standard?

I remember first reading about the Preacher Standing in the Stead of God controversy here on the ‘fuge and other blogs about fifteen months ago, and honestly not being that rattled about it.  I can’t really explain it, other than at the time I thought it was a distraction from the “real” issues of SGM’s polity-or lack thereof-corrupting the finer points of theology and fostering authoritarian practices in all levels of its leadership.

However, the phrase kept coming up time and again in blog discussions, and I could see that whether or not it initially alarmed me, it was obviously troubling to a great deal of folks here on the blogs, and an obvious stumbling block to the reform that I was praying for and pursuing within and without SGM at the time.

That’s when I decided to do some serious research.

The Preacher Standing in the Stead of God controversy is both a symptom and description of much deeper issues regarding the view SGM leadership has of themselves and the flock in relationship to God.  As such, I believe the bombastic statements it makes requires at least a semi-scholarly response, and I have attempted to do so here.

Apologies for the color-coding, but this article reaches a quote-within-a-quote-within-a-quote level that I believe requires extra effort in distinctions between the writers/speakers to avoid confusion.  Here’s the color scheme (and ”PK’s post-of-many-colors” jokes are welcome and OK):

CJ Mahaney: blue

J.I. Packer: grey

Protestant Knight: black

Jeff Purswell: bright red

Charles Simeon: dark red

Of late I have been writing many research papers for school and found the required APA formatting to be easiest to use and do as well, particularly for citations and references.

–pk

~~~

Man Instead of God

by Protestant Knight

In his blog entry titled “The Preacher Standing in the Stead of God,” C.J. Mahaney communicates in no uncertain terms what is of extreme-if not most-importance to him and Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) in establishing the bride of Christ: “In Sovereign Grace we are committed to the primacy of preaching in building the local church.  And within this conviction is an awareness of the gravity of the preaching event” (Mahaney & Purswell, 2008, para. 1).

Mahaney continues briefly in introducing a transcribed segment of an address given by Jeff Purswell at the SGM Pastors College during a preaching conference in February of 2008.  I would encourage any reader to examine the entire blog entry and quote by Purswell to provide context, but here is the controversial segment, which includes Purswell quoting J.I. Packer:

Listen to this quote from a classic essay on preaching by J.I. Packer in The Preacher and Preaching.  Packer writes,

God’s standard way of securing and maintaining His person-to-person communication with us His human creatures is through the agency of persons whom He sends to us as His messengers….Such were the prophets and apostles, and such supremely was Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son….That is the succession in which we preachers today are called to stand.

It’s sobering that this is “the succession in which preachers today are called to stand.”  The moment of preaching is not simply one in which you-by virtue of your job or by virtue of the nameplate on your office door-get to stand up and share some thoughts.  No.  You are not sharing thoughts.  You are not Jay Leno.  You are not a talking head.  You are standing in the very stead of God.

Oh, that is a frightening thing (Mahaney & Purswell, 2008, para. 8).

The subjects most often commented about on this and other blogs are not only the problem-fraught “…standing in the very stead of God” type of statements, but also the parallel that Purswell attempts to establish between the present day preacher and Moses-the latter’s Mount Horeb “I AM” experience, and later the giving of the law, specifically (Mahaney & Purswell, 2008, para. 6).  This is a stretch, beloved, to say the least; however, I will not re-hash what has been on the blogs on the above subjects, with the exception and addition of:

• A simple definition and grammatical point
• The possible origins of the “…standing in the stead of God” language used by Purswell
• A complete version of the J.I. Packer quote used by Purswell, examined in context
• Contemplation of an analogy–one not often mentioned–by Purswell in the “Preacher Standing in the Stead of God” message excerpt

“In the Stead of” and “Instead”

The word “instead” is actually a contraction of the phrase, “in the stead” and like so many of our English words handed down through the centuries, “instead” was a contraction that-for better or worse-stuck.  In looking at dictionary.com’s definition of “instead”-which is based on the 2010 edition of the Random House Dictionary-the first usage listed gives the following definition: “as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of [emphasis added] someone or something” (“instead“, 2010, para. 1).  So, in fact, looking at the phrase, “the preacher standing in the stead of God,” it is essentially saying “the preacher standing instead of God,” in modern vernacular.  It gets all the more harrowing in this context when you see it refers to a “replacement” or “substitute” in terms of “someone or something.”

Where Purswell’s Use of “Standing in the Stead of God” May Have Come From

In his message, Purswell quotes from J.I. Packer’s “Why Preach?”  This is a 29-page introduction to the book The Preacher and Preaching (Logan, Jr., 1986).  What is interesting to note is Packer quotes Charles Simeon in the same introduction in the same book;  interesting because Simeon’s comments created a serious blip on my radar for obvious reasons:

“Ministers are ambassadors for God and speak in Christ’s stead,” wrote Charles Simeon. “If they preach what is founded on the Scriptures, their word, as far as it is agreeable to the mind of God, is to be considered as God’s.  This is asserted by our Lord and His apostles.  We ought to therefore receive the preacher’s word as the word of God himself” [Pollard, 1959, pp. 188-189].  There is no nobler calling than to serve God as a preacher of the divine word (Logan, Jr., 1986, pp. 24-25).

No one is going to start riots because Purswell did not credit Simeon on the “in…stead [of]” phraseology.  That being said, it is a pretty safe bet this is where the language came from, as it sits in the same volume within a few pages from the Packer quote that Purswell uses to back his point.  All of this needs better framing by what Packer actually said in his “Introduction: Why Preach” from The Preacher and Preaching.

J.I. Packer on Preaching

Here is Purswell’s quotation of Packer again, with the missing segments in bold and underlined by me to differentiate.  This includes the beginning and the segments missing within the ellipses (the “…”) that help provide better context:

Now the Bible makes it appear that God’s standard way of securing and maintaining His person-to-person communication with us His human creatures is through the agency of persons whom He sends to us as His messengers.  By being made God’s spokesmen and mouthpieces for His message, the messengers become emblems, models, and embodiments of God’s personal address to each of their hearers, and by their own commitment to the message they bring, they become models also of personal response to that address. Such were the prophets and apostles, and such supremely was Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son, who has been described as being both God for man and man for God. That is the succession in which we preachers today are called to stand (Logan, Jr., 1986, pp. 15-16).

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, within and without SGM: Before we or any preacher get lost in any illusions of positional grandeur, it is of great importance to know what Packer correctly attributes to whom in the above statement regarding one aspect in God’s methodology in preaching:

• Man: human, creature, spokesman, messenger, emblem, model, embodiment
• Jesus Christ: God incarnate, supreme spokesman, supreme messenger, supreme emblem, supreme model, and supreme embodiment via “God for man, and man for God”

I would appeal that we never forget this before we start talking so highly about ourselves.  I am also submitting that in the twenty-nine pages of Packer’s “Introduction: Why Preach?” there is an entirely different tone.  Packer’s theme is one of service to a flock, and not governance over plebeians.

Statues

Admittedly, this is the only part of this critique where keeping my emotions in check in any type of cool-headed scholarly fashion is difficult, to say the least.

In making his point through analogy, I believe Purswell makes what is arguably one of the poorest choices possible, and then uses such man-glorifying language to buttress this analogy that I am at times bankrupt for words in expressing my revulsion to it:

Just as in the ancient Near East a king, in vast provinces he cannot travel to, would set up huge statues of himself which represented his presence and authority, in the same way God has set up an image of himself to represent and reflect himself.  And that is man. And this impacts the way God communicates, as he speaks through divinely appointed messengers.  After man was ejected from the Garden, God has communicated to his people by mediating his word through someone.  Even the Scriptures were mediated from God through someone (Mahaney & Purswell, 2008, para. 5).

Even re-reading it now months later since that first reading, this passage still takes my breath away, in a bad way.

Let us be very clear on what Scripture and history relates to us in terms of a statue, and in particular a statue of a king.  I would first suggest a simple systematic search of verses and sections of scripture that contain the word “statue,” to see primarily what their reputation is in scripture, even if statues in and of themselves may at times not be inherently evil unless they fall under the description of being an idol (worshipped) in the category within the Second Commandment.   This link will help facilitate such a study across five different translations of the Bible.

Second, I would look briefly at the examples of history in the context of the statues of leaders.  Particularly analyze how the past, present, and future has treated the citizenry whom live(d) in the shadows of the statues of “near east kings” like the Pharaohs, the kings of Babylon, the Kings of Persia, the Mesopotamian kings, and the Sultans, just to name a few.  This is aside from the statues and iconography erected to honor the Roman emperors, the Byzantine emperors, the Popes, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong-il, Ho-Chi-Minh, and Ceauşescu.  In regard to the statues of leaders and whatever subjective feelings there are on the part of any of us, I think a general consensus can be reached that this analogy is a poor one.

Purswell stated that “God has set up an image of himself to represent and reflect himself.”  You bet He has.  And I would argue that God’s supreme image of representation and reflection is in Jesus Christ and Him alone.  He alone is deserving of this type of language of worship, honor, adoration, affection, and service.

“You are standing in the very stead of God. Oh, that is a frightening thing.”  It’s frightening, all right.  That is, frightening in a cosmic sense when you try to raise a man’s head to the level of Christ’s crown, let alone trying to raise it above that crown.

When the flock is offered (and chooses) icons and statues of man instead of God, the result is every sort of mayhem and grief that runs the gamut of the imaginable up through the unimaginable.

The only things I want standing in my province to remind me of the presence and authority of my Ruler is an Empty Cross and an Empty Tomb.  And when He returns and stands in my province, my face will gladly hit the ground.

–pk

~~~

References

Logan, S. T., Jr. (Ed.). (1986). The preacher and preaching. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed.

Mahaney, C., & Purswell, J. (2008, July 5). The preacher standing in the stead of God [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Blog/post/The-Preacher-Standing-in-the-Stead-of-God.aspx

Pollard, A. (Ed.). (1959). Let Wisdom Judge. London: Inter-Varsity Press.

instead. (2010). In Dictionary.com unabridged. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=instead&ia=luna

Addendum 4/27.

I haven’t read any of the comments, so I’m not addressing anyone-just saying what  should have said when we posted the notes.

Please know that Purswell’s lecture notes are not a replacement of Harvey’s polity doc, nor is this SGM’s new polity statement. The conversation within SGM is continuing. Pastors present at T4G were asked to submit questions and opinions. Every single pastor in SGM has since received an email, again asking for input, so please know this is not the final statement.

Having said that, it is clear that one thing will not change: SGM’s view of pastoral authority and their extreme clergy/laity distinction. If Purswell drove any point home, it was that all authority in SGM resides in the leadership, with the congregation having zero authority.

Sovereign Grace Meetings – T4G

April 12, 2010

I.  Introduction – The Importance of This Topic

1.  Convictions about eldership are crucial because of Scripture’s emphasis on it.

2.  Convictions about eldership are crucial because it is the primary governance structure in the local church.

3.  Convictions about eldership are crucial in order to withstand our culture’s anti-authority bias.

II.  The NT sets forth the office of elder as the primary governance structure in the local church.

A.  The terms “elder” (presbyteros), “overseer” (episkopos), and “pastor” (poimen) are used interchangeably to refer to the same office.

1.  Titus 1:5-9:  Paul instructs Titus to appoint “elders” (v. 5), and then in specifying the required qualities he states “for the overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach…” (v. 7).  Commentators are in wide agreement that both terms refer to the same office (1).  In listing the necessary qualities for the office, Paul simply shifts to a more functional term (2).

2.  Acts 20:17-28:  Paul summons the “elders” of the Ephesian church (v. 17) and affirms that “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God” (v. 28).  Again, Paul uses both terms to refer to the same group of people, and therefore the same office.

3.  I Tim 3:1-7:  Paul instructs Timothy concerning two offices, “overseer” and “deacon.”  The list of qualities for the overseer is in substance equivalent to that provided in Titus 1, including the responsibility to teach.  In 1 Tim 5:17, Paul speaks of the “elders” who “rule” (proistemi) and “work hard at… teaching” (didaskalia), responsibilities that correspond precisely to those given to the “overseer” in 3:4-5 (proistemi) and 3:2 (didaskitos).  This implies that the office of “overseer” in 1 Tim. 3:1 is identical to that of “elder” in 5:17 and in Titus 1:5.

4.  Philippians 1:1:  Paul addresses two groups of leaders among the church:  “overseers” and “deacons,” matching the two offices mentioned in 1 Tim. 3:1ff.

5.  Eph 4:11/1 Peter 5:1-2/Acts 20:28:  Although Eph 4:11 contains the only instance of the noun “pastor” to refer to a ministry in the church, Peter exhorts “elders” (1 Pet 5:1) to “pastor (poimaino) the flock of God,” indicating that the elder’s work is to pastor.  Similarly, in Acts 20 Paul instructs the “elders” (v. 17) to “pay careful attention to the flock (poimnion), in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,” linking the office (”elder”) to the functional title (”overseer”) and to the activity (pastoring).  Finally, the linking of “pastor” and “teacher” in Eph 4:11 shows the close association of these roles consistent with the requirements of elders to teach (1 Tim 3:2:  Titus 1:9).

6.  Conclusion:  the terms “elder,” “overseer,” and “pastor” all refer to the same office in the NT. (3)  Each looks at the same office from a different vantage point:  “elder” speaks of spiritual maturity, “overseer” speaks of governance, and “pastor” speaks of care. (4)

B.  The consistent NT pattern for local church governance is elder/overseer/pastor rule.

1.  As apostles planted churches, they established elders to lead those churches.

• Acts 14:22-23:  Part of the apostles’ “strengthening” and “encouraging” new disciples (v. 22) was the appointment of elders (v. 23).

• Titus 1:5:  Central to “setting right” (epidiorthoo) what was lacking/left unfinished ( ta leiponta) in the churches of Crete was the appointment of elders.

• In addition to Paul’s ministry, the general epistles also affirm the widespread existence of elders in the churches they address (1 Pet 5:1; Jas 5:14).

“Both Peter (1 Pet 5:1) and James assume the ministry of elders in the church, showing that the office was well established in the early church.  The prominent role of the elders in Acts and the description of the office in the Pastoral Epistles suggest that elders were spiritually mature men who guided the spiritual development of local congregations.” (5)

2.  Of the two established offices in the local church (elder/overseer/pastor and deacon;  cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13;  Phil 1:1), the elder is invested with governing responsibility.

• 1 Tim 5:17:  “Let the elders who rule (proistemi) well…”

• 1 Tim 3:4-5:  He must manage (proistemi) his own household well…  for if someone does not know how to manage (proistemi) his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”

• 1 Thess 5:12-13:  “…  respect those who labor among you and are over (proistemi) you in the Lord…”

• Rom 12:8″  “…  the one who leads (proistemi), with zeal…”

• Heb 13:7:  “Remember your leaders (ptcp from hegeomai), those who spoke the word of God to you”

• Heb 13:7:  “Obey your leaders (ptcp from hegeomai) and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will give an account…”

• Heb 13:24:  “Greet all your leaders (ptcp from hegeomai)…”

• 1 Peter 5:2:  “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight (episcopeo)…”

“The function of these officials was that of bearing rule over the church….  That is to say, they are in a position where they exercise authority over their brethren….  Such passages indicate that the elders had a very real authority, and that they were to be highly respected in the Christian community.” (6)

III.  Plurality of Elders

A.  Whether by historical evidence or by precept, the unvarying pattern in the NT is a plurality of elders.

• Every time the word “elder” appears in the context of church leaders, it is always in the plural (Acts 14:23;  15:2;  4, 6, 22-23;  16:4;  20:17;  21:18;  1 Tim 5:17;  Titus 1:5;  Jas 5:14;  1 Pet 5:1).

• Although there is no evidence for any church with only one elder, churches with a plurality of elders existed in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30;  15:2.4 et al).  Antioch (Acts 13:1), Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra (Acts 14:23), Ephesus (Acts 20:17), and various churches in Asia Minor, including those comprising mainly Gentiles (1 Pet 1:1) and Jewish Christians of the Diaspora (Jas 1:1).  Moreover, Paul’s instruction to Titus to appoint elders in the churches of Crete fits this same pattern (Titus 1:5).

B.  Equality of Elders

1.  In every church for which we have evidence, the leaders are all referred to by the same title (elder/overseer/pastor) and all hold the same office, with no indication that one holds an authority not possessed by the others.

2.  Rather than a hierarchy of authority among elders, in the NT authority resides with the eldership as a whole.  This is seen in the fact that when elders act, they act as a body (e.g., Acts 13:1-3;  15:22-23).

3.  The equality of elders is further indicated by the qualifications for the office, which equally apply to each elder (1 Tim 3:1-7;  Titus 1:5-9).

a.  All elders must meet the same character requirements and must possess a teaching gift.

b.  Some appeal to 1 Tim 5:17 to distinguish between two classes of elders:  “ruling elders” and “teaching elders.”

• This interpretation in essence creates another category of church leader, and one that is foreign to the text of the NT.

• This interpretation distorts the very nature of biblical leadership as fundamentally doctrinal, leading people into a clear understanding and glad application of the teaching of Scripture.

• This interpretation fails to recognize that all elders must be skillful in teaching (1 Tim 3:2;  cf. 2 Tim 2:24;  Titus 1:9)

• In the text, Paul is either: (a) highlighting among the elders (all of whom teach) those especially gifted for and laboring diligently in this task (7);   or (b) commending those who lead well through their diligence in teaching (”Let the elders who have been ruling well be considered worthy of double honor, namely, those who work hard at preaching and teaching”). (8)

“Thus, the idea of elders who only rule is pure human invention – a teaching that demeans the elders and robs them of their God-given mandate.  All elders, then, must be armed with a knowledge of Scripture and be able to teach, judge, exhort, admonish, shepherd, and defend the flock against false teachers.  Scripture teaches that the entire eldership pastors God’s flock, not just the pastor.” (9)

4.  The result of such equality should be humility, mutual accountability, a responsibility to participate (for those tempted to passivity), and a willingness to yield (for those tempted to dominate).

C.  Differences Among Elders

1.  Different elders have different gifts (1 Cor 12), different proportionalities in their gifting, and different expressions and effects of their giftings (1 Cor 12:  Rom 12:3-8;  cf. 1 Cor 3:5-9;  Luke 11-27)

2.  Differentiation in gifts typically leads to a differentiation in role and responsibilities (1 Cor 3:5-9;  note v. 5: “as the Lord has assigned to each [his task]“).

3.  The Senior Pastor:  First Among Equals

a.  Although Scripture stresses the equality of elders, there are clearly examples where one man appears more prominent and exercises primary leadership.

• There is a consistent biblical pattern of a primary leader among leaders in both the OT (Ex. 18:19-22;  Num 11:17) and in teh ministry of Jesus (Mark 5:37;  9:2;  14:33;  Matt 16:17-18).

• In the early church, James clearly exercised a prominent role and decisive influence (Acts 15:13-21;  cf Gal 1:19;  2:9;  12).  Cf. also Stephanas (1 Cor 16:15-16);  Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25);  Epaphras (Col 1:7;  4:12).

• Although 1 Tim 5:17 doesn’t create different orders of elders, it does suggest a differentiation in gifting and a greater prominence of elders more given to teaching.

b.  The wisdom of recognizing a primary leader has numerous practical benefits that are widely recognized.

• Recognizes and allows for the maximum expression of individual giftings

• Allows for specialization among those with different gifting

• Helps promote unity

• Fosters decisiveness

“The unity and parity within the one office of elder helps to foster the mutual submission to one another, which in turn helps to preserve the humble servant quality of the eldership, and, at the same time, the unique Lordship of Christ.  The recognition of differing manifestations of gifts, especially in that of teaching, within the unified eldership exalts the sovereignty of Christ’s Lordship, who gives gifts as he will for  the good of his church, and helps to ensure that that most needed gift of teaching Christ’s Word will have full emphasis and free course in his church.  By this, his Word of instruction and the enabling of his Spirit, Christ orders and edifies his people, the church, the body of Christ.” (10)

D.  Plurality:  An Ideal to Work Toward

1.  Although plurality is clearly the biblical pattern, the NT can envision circumstances when a plurality is not possible.

• Acts 14:23:  elders were appointed on the return leg of Paul and Barnabas’s journey, after the churches had matured, and not at the moment they were planted.

• Titus 1:5:  Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in the churches of Crete, which were currently operating in their nascent stage without elders.

2.  “The Leadership Team”:  Functional and Provisional Plurality

a.  In the case of church plants, a fully developed eldership is rarely if ever possible.

b.  However, in the U.S., state law requires incorporation to benefit from certain legal protections, and also determines board composition, which can impose upon us a plurality from the outset.

c.  Any legal structure we adopt should reflect, as much as possible, our biblically informed polity.

• Since the board has real authority, it should reflect the church’s actual governmental reality at that time.

3.  The Question of “Lay Elders”

a.  Despite Scripture’s reticence concerning the actual circumstances in various locales, it clearly teaches that spiritual leaders have the right to receive compensation for their labors (1 Cor 9:6-14;  Luke 10:7;  Matt 10:10), and indeed instructs that this be done (Gal 6:6;  1 Tim 5:17-18). (11)

b.  These are times when circumstances may render the compensation of full-time pastors difficult is not impossible (persecution, church impoverishment, etc.).

c.  Whenever possible, we desire to honor Scripture;s command to financially support elders.  Our practice in this area has resulted in numerous benefits that confirm the wisdom of the biblical command: (12)

(1)  An efficient eldership – strategic planning and decision making are greatly enhanced by having men united in schedule and venue

(2)  A connected eldership -  relationship and biblical fellowship are greatly facilitated through the benefit of working closely together

(3)  An undistracted eldership -  men are not adding the burden of governing and pastoring the local church to the demands of their vocation and family

d.  In Sovereign Grace, we strongly advocate and remain committed to building full-time, compensated teams of elders.  Although we do not prohibit lay eldership, any consideration of it should be governed by the clear Scriptural guidelines:  (1)  Any “lay” elder should fully meet the biblical qualifications for eldership, including having a gift of teaching sufficient for faithful communication of doctrine, the refutation of error, and the effective equipping of others for ministry (1 Tim 3:2;  Titus 1:9;  2 Tim 2:15, 24;  Eph 4:11 ff.).  (2)  Any “lay” elder should be sufficiently mature, gifted, and equipped to function as a pastor in the full sense of that term (with the exception of full-time hours and financial remuneration).

3.  Lay elders should not be instituted on a principle of “congregational representation” in accord with democratic principles.  Like all elders, “lay” elders represent, not the congregation, but Christ in his ministry to his body.

4.  Lay elders should not be instituted as a way for the pastor to be “in touch” with his congregation.  Pastors are charged by God to “pay careful attention to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God” (Acts 20:28).

5.  Once “lay” elders are instituted, it becomes very difficult to dismantle that system when the church reaches the point where it is able to support vocational elders.

IV.  Responsibilities of Elders

A.  Serve as examples (1 Peter 5;3;  1 Tim 3:2, 7;  4:12;  Titus 2:7-8)

B.  Teach sound doctrine and guard against false doctrine (1 Tim 3:2;  Titus 1:9;  cf. 1 Tim 1:3-7;  4:6, 13, 16;  6:20-21;  2 Tim 1:14;  2:2, 15, 24-25;  4:1-2;  Titus 2:1, 15;  Acts 20:20. 27;  Eph 4:11-16;  Col 1:28-29)

C.  Care for the spiritual well-being of the church (Acts 20:28;  1 Tim 3:5;  2 Tim 2:24-26;  1 Thess 5:12-13;  Heb 13:17;  1 Pet 5:2-3;  Jas 5:14)

D.  Govern the affairs of the church (1 Tim 3:4-5;  5:17;  1 Thess 5:12-13;  Heb 13:17;  Rom 12:8;  Acts 11:30;  Acts 20:28)

E.  Equip the church for ministry (Eph 4:11-16;  2 Tim 2:2;  Titus 2:1-14)

F.  Raise up future leadership (2 Tim 2:2;  cf. Acts 14:23;  Titus 1:5-9)

V.  Selection of Elders

A.  Regardless of the mechanism for choosing elders, it is God who gives leaders to his church (Matt 9:37-38;  Acts 20:28;  Eph 4:11 ff.)

B.  Because (a) eldership requires a grasp of doctrine and an ability to teach it and refute error, and (b) elders are charged with passing on sound doctrine (2 Tim 2:2;  cf.  1 Tim 1:18;  4-6,  11,  13;  6:2b-5;  Titus 1:9;  2:1,  15), then (c)  it falls to elders to identify those exhibiting character and gifting, and to equip them with sufficient biblical and doctrinal understanding that they might function faithfully and effectively as elders.  “Perpetuating the eldership is a major aspect of church leadership responsibility.” (13)

C.  In every case where elders are chosen or instruction is given as to their selection, the role falls to leaders (founding apostles, apostolic delegates/elders).

1.  Acts 14:23;  Titus 1:5-9;  1 Tim 4:14;  5:22 (14)

“On their very first missionary journey the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are described as appointed presbyters in every church.  The same rule was doubtless carried out in all the brotherhoods founded later;  but it is mentioned here and here only, because teh mode of procedure on this occasion would suffice as a type of the apostles’ dealings elsewhere under similar circumstances.” (15)

2.  The oft-cited example of Acts 6 for the congregational selection of elders cannot bear the weight often placed upon it.

a.  Contextually, the thrust of Acts 6:1-7 is the progress of the word despite internal dissension (cf. v. 7).

b.  The text recounts, not the normative (or normal) structuring of the community, but a specific response to a particular issue involving cultural and racial tensions within the community.

c.  The apostles’ solution was a shrewd one that called for those involved in the complaint to work toward its solution.

d.  Far from delegating authority to the congregation, the solution was both formulated (6:3) and confirmed by the apostles, who retained authority over the process.

e.  Therefore, the incident does not involve (1)  a normative, repetitive circumstance of church life, (2) the selection of elders, or (3) the creation of a formal congregational structure that cedes authority to the congregation.

f.  In contrast to congregational polity principles, more hermeneutically-legitimate inferences from this text would include:  (1)   The word-centered priorities for a church’s leaders;  (2)  The wisdom of involving elements of a congregation most directly affected by a conflict/crisis in the solution of that issue;  (3)  The responsibility of leaders to provide primary direction for a community;  (4)  The importance of congregational affirmation of a leader’s character.

D.  The Congregation’s Role in Choosing Elders:  Counsel and Support

1.  Although elders (or, in the case of church plants, elders in concert with extra-local ministry) bear the primary responsibility for raising up new elders, the congregation plays an important role in the process.

2.  The congregation’s knowledge of and trust in a man will often be vital in determining a man’s qualification due to a number of factors:  (a)  the nature of the qualifications for eldership – related as they are to character and reputation – require personal knowledge of a man;  (b)  the reality that other church members will usually have personal experience with a potential elder, and some may know him better than the existing elders, makes the congregation’s counsel important;  (c)  the requirement that potential leaders be tested (1 Tim 3:10;  cf. 1 Tim 5:24-25) certainly involves the congregation’s experience with a man;  (d)  since the potential elder will be in a governing role and teh congregation will have a biblical obligation to follow him, the elders should do all they can to inform the congregation and to gain their support and affirmation, e.g.:

• informal discussions with caregroup members or others in the man’s relational network;

• discussions with caregroup leaders or other influential members;

• announcements to the congregation to inform them that a man is being considered for eldership and to solicit any feedback that could bear upon that;

3.  As important as the congregation’s evaluation, counsel, support, and prayer are, this is different from ceding to the congregation formal authority in the process, which never appears to be the case in the NT either textually or theologically.

VI.  The Role of the Congregation in NT Polity

A.  Congregational Submission

1.  Generally speaking, there is no fundamental distinction among believers in Christ’s body.  Under the new covenant, there is no mediating class of leaders between God and his people (Jer 31:31-34), but all Christians – elder and congregation alike – have equal access to God through Christ (Gal 3:28), are “priests” of God (1 Pet 2:9), possess the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts (Acts 2:17-18;  1 Cor 6:19;  2 Cor 1:22), receive illumination from teh Spirit (1 Cor 2:6-16), and all other spiritual blessings in Christ (Eph 1:3 ff.).

2.  Yet, God orders and gives leaders to his church.  The congregation’s submission to Christ finds expression in its submission to godly elders (1 Thess 5:12-13;  Heb 13:17;  1 Pet 5:5).

• All ministry to the church is ultimately Christ’s own ministry and, as gifts from God, elders are an extension of Christ’s ministry to his people. (16)

• Jesus is the apostle (Heb 3:1), the prophet (Matt 13:57), the teacher (Matt 10:24-25), the shepherd (John 10:11;  1 Pet 5:4), the evangelist (Luke 4:18), the preacher (Matt 4:17), and the servant (Mark 10:45).  All leaders in the church carry on Jesus’ own ministry.

3.  This is a voluntary submission which must not be coerced, and which assumes that elders are faithfully leading the congregation in obedience to God’s word.

• God’s word circumscribes the elder’s authority.  Only Scripture can bind the conscience to the Christian, and we forfeit our authority when we deviate from God’s word.

4.  The idea that human authority in the church rests with the congregation is a more democratic ideal than a biblical one.

a.  Throughout salvation – history, God’s normal pattern has been to exercise his rule through appointed leaders.  The rule of the people or the congregation is conspicuous by its absence.

b.  Biblical texts that specifically address the notion of authority with respect to the congregation and its leaders unanimously affirm elder rule and congregational submission.  The relationship is never reversed.

• Elders rule/govern/manage (prostemi):  1 Tim 3:4-5;  5:17;  1 Thess 5:12;  Rom 12:8

• Elders lead (hegeomai):  Heb 13:7, 17, 24

• Elders exercise oversight (episkopos;  episkopeo):  Acts 20:28;  Phil 1:1;  Titus 1:7;  1 Pet 5:2)

• The congregation respects (lit. “know”:  oida (17)):  1 Thess 5:12

• The congregation esteems (lit. “think, consider,: hegeisthai (18)):  1 Thess 5:13

• The congregation obeys (peitho):  Heb 13:17

• The congregation submits (hypeiko):  Heb 13:17

• The congregation imitates:  Heb 13:7;  1 Cor 11:1;  2 Thess 3:7,9

c.  Texts dealing with church discipline undoubtedly demonstrate the role and responsibility of the congregation in this process, but not in a way that excludes or diminishes the elders’ role.

(1)  Matthew 18

• Matthew 18 as a whole deals with relationships within the community of God’s people.

• The issue of church discipline necessarily involves the action and participation of the church community, but this says nothing about the role of the church’s leaders in the process.  Indeed, if the text had specified the role of elders, it would have sounded suspiciously anachronistic at this point in Jesus’ ministry (19).  The likely frame of reference for Jesus’ listeners would have been the Jewish culture where such matters where handled by the elders of the city or synagogue (20).

• The mention of “two” and “two or three” at least suggests the involvement of leaders/judges in resolving the offense (21).

• However Matt 18 is interpreted, we are obligated to account for the NT’s teaching on specific church officers and their authority in governing the affairs of the church.

“This excommunication, as we have proved before, is an act of church authority exerted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:  and if so, then it is the act of the officers of the church….  for there is no authority in the church, properly so called, but what resides in the officers of it.” (22)

(2)  1 Corinthians 5

• Similar principles apply as mentioned above on Matthew 18:  while the text emphasizes the congregation’s (necessary) role in church discipline, it simply does not specify what role the church’s leadership should play.

• Paul’s address of the entire church is particularly relevant given the church’s apathy and permissiveness toward the scandalous behavior in view.

• We must keep in mind the ad hoc nature of this epistle.  Paul’s focus on the entire congregation throughout this letter likely reflects a conflict between Paul and the entire church that the letter is intended to address (23).

• Paul addresses this entire letter to the congregation.  If we deny elders a leadership role in church discipline on teh basis of 1 Cor 5, then we must also deny them a role in the Lord’s Supper (ch.  11), the church’s gatherings in general (chs. 12-14), etc.

“In the name of those obvious truths, what are these elders for if the King and the Head of the church does not intend for them to govern the congregations over which he has placed them? (24)”

B.  Congregational Solidarity

i.  Because elders are fundamentally a part of the congregation themselves, the relationship between elders and the congregation is meant to be one of joyful unity.

• While elders must meet certain character qualifications, those qualifications are traits commanded of all believers.

• Elders have a responsibility to teach, but they like the congregation stand under the authority of God’s word.

• Elders are to proclaim and guard the gospel, but all believers are to stand firm in one spirit and strive together for the faith of the gospel (Phil 1:27)

ii.  Pastoral instruction and leadership should seek to win a congregation’s glad affirmation and forge a congregational solidarity through its manner of leadership.

a.  Humble instruction

b.  Informative communication

• Alerting the church to evidences of grace

• Educating the church as to the fruit of its life, serving, and giving

• Involving the church appropriately in the leadership’s thinking and plans

c.  Proactive deployment (Eph 4:11 ff.)

“The normal responsibility for and authority of leadership in the NT rests with the bishops-elders-pastors;  but if they are interested in pursuing biblical patterns of leadership, they will be concerned to demonstrate observable growth not only in their grasp of truth but also in their lived discipline (1 Tim. 4:14-16).  They will comprehend that spiritual leadership, far from lording it over others (Matt 20:25-28), is a balanced combination of oversight (1 Tim. 4:11-13;  6:17-19;  Titus 3:9-11) and example (1 Tim. 4:12;  6:6-11,  17-18;  1 Pet. 5:1-4) which, far from being antithetical, are mutually reinforcing.  By the same token such leaders prefer not to dictate terms but to lead the church into spiritually minded consensus.  Whereas Christians are encouraged to support and submit to spiritual leadership (e.g. Heb. 13:17), such encouragement must not be considered a blank check if churches are responsible for and have the authority to discipline false teachers and to recognize an antecedent commitment not to a pastor but to the truth of the gospel.”  (25)

C.  Congregational Recourse

1.  Although authority in the local church is given to elders, they are not to be insulated from the congregation’s appropriate observations and concerns.

2.  Because Scripture affirms the right of church members to bring legitimate allegations concerning an elder (1 Tim 5:19-21), a church’s polity must provide a clear and effective avenue by which such allegations can be evaluated.

3.  Clear communication about such avenues of recourse will foster both a healthy accountability and an atmosphere of trust.

• A number of Sovereign Grace churches accomplish this by utilizing the “Relational Commitments” developed by Peacemaker Ministries in commitment classes, etc.

VIII.  The Relationship Between the Congregation and Extra-Local Ministry

A.  Primary authority in the local church resides within the local eldership

1.  We believe the authority Paul exercised over the churches he planted was unique (and even he was reluctant to exercise it;  cf. 2 Cor 10-13;  esp. 10:1-2, 8-9, 13-18;  11:1, 16-17, 21, 30-31;  12:1-14;  19-21;  13:1-4, 6-9).

2.  Beyond Paul’s own authority, the NT indicates no formal, ecclesiastical hierarchy to which churches were in submission.  The picture seems to be that elders were given by God to care for their own churches (e.g., Acts 20:28;  1 Thess 5:12-13;  Heb 13:17).  (26)

3.  When apostolic ministry planted churches, it raised up and appointed local leaders and entrusted those churches to their care (Acts 14:23;  Titus 1:5;  cf. Acts 20:28).

B.  Extra-local ministry fosters unity among churches, unites them in a common mission, and provides a source of voluntary accountability and partnership.

1.  Although local churches in the NT appear to be self-governing, they do not view themselves as independent (nor were they encouraged to — cf. 1 Cor 11:16;  14:33, 36).

2.  The churches’ relationships with apostolic ministry helped to foster a vibrant sense of unity and cooperation with other churches that took many forms:

• Mutual care:  Acts 11:27-30;  Rom 15:25-27;  1 Cor 16:1-4;  2 Cor 8:1-7

• Mutual labors:  Acts 13:1-3;  14:27;  Acts 16:1-3;  Phil 1:3-5;  2:25-29;  Col 1:7-8;  4:12;  3 John 1-8

• Mutual doctrinal commitments:  Acts 15;  Gal 2:1-10;  Col 4:16;  cf. other circular letters (1 Pet 1:1;  Jas 1:1)

• Mutual accountability:  1 Cor 11:16;  14:33, 36;  Philemon;  1 Tim 1:19-20;  2 Tim 1:15;  4:10

3.  The churches in the NT might best be characterized as possessing a qualified independence within a network of interdependence.

• They are fundamentally self-governing, but they are strengthened and protected by their relationships with apostolic ministry and other churches.

• They acknowledge their interdependence and express their solidarity through a voluntary accountability, mutual dependence, and active cooperation.

4.  In Sovereign Grace, our desire is to emulate this pattern in our various relationships:

• The elders of each church have the responsibility to govern the affairs of their respective churches.

• The churches of Sovereign Grace unite together around a common doctrinal commitment and a common mission, fostered and facilitated by relationships with each other and with Sovereign Grace.

• Churches express their relational unity and interdependence with Sovereign Grace through affirming its doctrinal commitments, partnering together in the proclamation of the gospel, inviting its counsel and accountability, and investing in its mission.

IX.  Conclusion

• In a radically autonomous culture, biblical eldership gives us faith to lead.

____________________________________________________

Endnotes:

(1) That the term “overseer” is singular in v. 7 is of no consequence. It should be taken as a generic singular, in keeping with the switch to the particularizing singular in v. 6 (”if anyone”).

(2) So, e.g., I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1999), 159; George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 290; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 390.

(3) Most likely, the term “elder” was taken over from OT and contemporary Jewish usage, while “overseer” derives from the Greco-Roman world. “Shepherd” has a rich OT background as a term for leaders of God’s people.

(4) For a book-length treatment of the equation of “elder” and “overseer,” see Benjamin L. Merkle, The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church (Studies in Biblical Literature 57; New York: Peter Lang, 2003).

(5) Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 237.

(6) Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: InterVarsity, 1964),76-77.

(7) Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2006, 362.

(8) So Mounce, Epistles, 308: “Paul is speaking of elders, namely, all the overseers who teach.” Also Marshall, Epistles, 610-612; Knight, Epistles, 232. These commentators render Malista as “that is,” or “namely,” a common meaning of the word (e.g., Titus 1:10; 2 Tim 4:13; poss. 1 Tim 4:10). Although Merkle, Elder, 154-156, draws no conclusion on this point of interpretation, he affirms that only one office with the same general requirements is in view: “As a rule every candidate for this office was to have some abilities in teaching” (154). For a thorough discussion on contextual and interpretive issues, see Mounce, Epistles, 306-309.

(9) Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth, 1986), 247.

(10) George W. Knight, III, “Two Offices (Elders/Bishops and Deacons) and Two Orders of Elders (Preaching/Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders): A New Testament Study,” Presbyterion 11 (1985),11-12. Although Knight ultimately argues for two orders of elders wrongly, in my view he nevertheless is careful to configure this within an overall unity and parity among elders, which makes his formulation more sound than others.

(11) Ronald G. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 293, comments on Gal 6:6: “Here, then, we have probably the earliest extant evidence for a form of full-time or nearly full-time ministry supported by the congregation in the early Church.” Cf. also H. Beyer, TDNT 3.639, who notes that the verse “confirms the validity and necessity of a professional teaching ministry in the congregation,” a ministry obviously continued in Paul’s later ministry as reflected in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 5: 17-18).

(12) These benefits have been drawn from Dave Harvey’s outline “Team Ministry,” as used in the SGM Pastors College, p. 4.

(13) Strauch, Eldership, 75. Even a congregationalist such as Merkle acknowledges the critical role elders must play in the selection of new elders; see Benjamin L. Merkle, 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 201-202.

(14) 1 Tim 5:22 refers to the commissioning of elders, continuing the overall treatment of eldership that spans I Tim 5:17-25. For a compelling argument as to the unity of this section, see John P. Meier, “Presbyteros in the Pastoral Epistles,” CBQ 35 (1973), 325ff. Meier is followed by, e.g., Mounce, Epistle, 304; Marshall, Epistles, 608. See also Knight, Epistles, 231.

(15) J. B. Lightfoot. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1894), 193 (cited in Strauch, Eldership, 72-73.

(16) For treatments that touch on such theological underpinnings of ministry, see Morris, Ministers, 11-38; R.B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 120-136; Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 281-347.

(17) The verb “to know” has the sense here of “take note of with a view to respecting and appreciating.” G.K. Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 160.

(18) “The combination of this verb “consider” with the adverb “quite beyond all measure” (hyperekperissoul) yields the sense reflected in the NIV. The Thessalonians should think about them in the highest way possible, and so hold them in highest regard.” Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 250-251.

(19) Craig Blomberg, Matthew (NAC; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 279, acknowledges this: “Jesus does not explain how we should air our grievances before the church; after all, he has not yet given any teaching on church structure.”

(20) So Robert Reymond, in Perspectives on Church Government, ed. Chad Owen Brand & R. Stanton Norman (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004), 199.

(21) Donald A Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (WBC 33b; Dallas: Word, 1995), 533, cites evidence (m. Sanh. 1: 1; h. Sanh. 7a; h. Ber. 6a) for the possibility that this represents a three-member court. See also David L. Turner, Matthew (BENTC; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 446.

(22) John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, abr. and ed. John Huxtable (London: Camelot, 1947), 113. Cited by L. Roy Taylor in Who Runs the Church?, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 166.

(23) See Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1987), 6-15, for a defense of this background.

(24) Robert Reymond, Perspectives, 200.

(25) D.A. Carson, “Church, Authority in the,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 230.

(26) Even such a Reformed theologian as Berkhof confirms this: “Reformed Church government recognizes the autonomy of the local church. This means: (1) That every local church is a complete church of Christ, fully equipped with everything that is required for its government. It has absolutely no need of it that any government should be imposed upon it from without. And not only that, but such an imposition would be absolutely contrary to its nature.” L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 589.

From twitter:

“Jeff Purswell just taught through an 18 page outline on church polity in 3 hrs. Great start to #t4g2010“

From a pastor’s blog:

“Monday evening and Tuesday morning we gathered as Sovereign Grace pastors to hear 2 substantial messages by Jeff Purswell that helped to clarify, deepen and expand our understanding of polity–that is, how local churches are to be governed and led.  We were reminded again of the great privilege of being called to lead and to care for God’s people, and of the importance of understanding as well as we can how God intends for his church to be structured.”

Based on what I’ve heard, it appears that “lay elders” are a part of the conversation. It also seems that the role of apostles is being reexamined. My understanding is that Purswell’s treatise may not be the final word regarding polity at this time. I think, loosely translated, that Purswell said that lay elders are not prohibited.

That’s it for now. More to come…

It’s password protected (smart), so you’ll need to contact her for more info. Carole and I commend Canary for this endeavor and strongly endorse her efforts.

Ladies, please contact Canary directly at aftersgm@gmail.com.

No such luck, but I did find a recent post by Dave Harvey, that included the following statement:

The function fulfilled by men following in Paul’s (and Timothy’s, and Silas’s, and Epaphras’s, etc.) footsteps is primarily missiological, not ecclesiological. The accent rests on gospel mission, not church maintenance. And the specific expression of that mission is church planting. “[Paul’s] more functional understanding of apostleship,” says Gordon Fee, “would certainly have its modern counterparts in those who found and lead churches in unevangelized areas.”

Is this a new view, or have I not been paying attention?

Mark Lauterbach, the senior pastor who was de-gifted and then re-gifted, shared his heart with the congregation after his Sunday morning sermon. There was another meeting last night, but I haven’t received any details yet.

I’m told that after his sermon, Mark asked the congregation to forgive him. He publicly confessed to the sins of pride and control, specifically, that he had refused input from the congregation, and confessed that was wrong for the pastors to decide in major issues themselves, and then inform the congregation.

Mark also stated that he had confused control for good leadership, and had sought to run things himself, instead of seeing others gifts and letting them walk in their gifting. He said that he had assumed too much authority.

The other pastor on staff confessed to ignoring input from the congregation regarding his responsibilities.

As an aside, here’s Mark’s latest blog post:

This is a repost from Feb of last year. Some links are dead, because I’m nicer than I used to be. Hard to believe, I know…

I feel that this is timely because MCL’s issues are polity issues. The members are waiting to see what actions the leaders will take. It doesn’t seem very “joint heir-like” to me. MCL is not their church. You are not their people. It is clear that pastors in SGM have more authority than is granted by Scripture. This extra Biblical view of pastoral authority informs their polity. “Don’t talk to each other, talk to us”. When did Paul ever make such a statement? To whom were the epistles written to? The churches. Elders are rarely mentioned in the letters to the churches.

In the the next “we have decided” statement statement delivered to MLC, the “we” should refer to all of you. You are not children.

_______________________

We have a lot of new readers. It’s obviously impossible to read every post written since June of 08, so many new guests might form an opinion of this blog based on the topic at hand.

I left SGM in June of 06 because of their polity. I started this blog in June of 08 because of their polity.

POLITY IS IMPORTANT. ALL of SGM’s problems flow from their unorthodox, unique-to-SGM polity. It informs their Eccesiology, Missiology, and is the reason for their truncated Gospel, as their polity only allows them to hear their own voice. Their polity has placed them on the outer fringe of orthodoxy, forcing them to use out of context or partial quotes to give the impression that Biblical scholars support their fringe view.

In the recent SGC Chesapeake fiasco, both Keith and Gene appealed to SGM’s polity statement, rather than to Scripture. Very Roman, if you ask me.

By all means, read the SGM polity statement. Then, with the statement in hand, please read what we’ve had to say about SGM’s polity, and our lengthy review of their polity statement.

I’ve tried to find everything we’ve said about SGM polity and link to it in this post.

This gets a little tricky. Click on the words in green below to read a post, then click on the home tab to return here to click on the next post.

Enjoy!

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/06/14/jerry-bridges-on-the-controller/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/06/20/responding-to-leadership-in-sgm/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/06/28/trust-your-leaders/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/06/26/they-stand-in-the-very-stead-of-god/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/07/01/more-responsibilities-of-the-sheep/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/07/10/jesus-on-leadership/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/07/15/sgm-polity/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/07/19/mick-jagger-and-cj-mahaney-on-leadership/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/07/21/under-their-thumb/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/08/06/the-fruit-of-good-pastoring/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/08/24/advice-to-the-lone-ranger/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/08/26/more-recommendations-for-cj/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/08/28/bible-doctrine-tastes-great-less-filling-burp/

The good stuff starts here….

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/09/02/polity-episode-1-an-introduction-to-dave-harveys-phantom-menace/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/09/04/sovereign-grace-ministries-on-elders/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/09/08/sovereign-grace-ministries-on-elders-2/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/09/10/polity-episode-2-dave-harveys-quote-in-the-cloned-quote-wars/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/09/17/polity-episode-3-dave-harveys-big-a-little-a-and-the-revenge-of-the-systh/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/09/19/more-grudem-on-polity-and-apostles/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/09/26/polity-episode-4-a-flimsy-hope-with-dave-harvey-a-new-hope-in-jesus-christ/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/10/01/missiology-part-1-entering-the-minefield-of-the-world/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/10/08/missiology-part-2-apostles-epistles-and-missions-oh-my/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/10/15/missiology-part-3-wayne-grudems-ministers-of-mercy-and-dave-harveys-apostles-in-authority/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/10/22/missiology-part-4-final-thoughts-on-the-true-source-of-apostolic-authority/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/11/04/why-sovereign-grace-ministries-is-not-a-cult-the-exorcist-and-other-lighthearted-election-day-thoughts/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/12/12/uh-oh-steve-shank-is-here/

http://sgmrefuge.com/2009/01/11/what-to-expect/Polity Scholity Revisited
]]> http://sgmrefuge.com/2010/01/23/polity-schmolity-revisited/feed/ 42 http://sgmrefuge.com/2010/01/21/danny-and-benny-are-humble/ http://sgmrefuge.com/2010/01/21/danny-and-benny-are-humble/#comments Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:29:11 +0000 Jim http://sgmrefuge.com/?p=341 You’ve received Danny’s email. Read points 5 and 6 very carefully. Notice what the evaluation team will and will not address.

“There are several issues in the list above that the rest of the leadership team would agree needs to be pursued…”

“However, there is significant disagreement with the other points listed…”

If the members I’ve communicated with are in any way indicative of the general feeling among the membership, it seems that “there is significant disagreement” between the leadership team and the members of MLC.

Post by Dorothy is Leaving Oz on Jan 7:

Grace and Peace,

Jim and Carole

Hark the herald angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled”
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
“Christ is born in Bethlehem”
Hark! The herald angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King!”
Christ by highest heav’n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin’s womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King!”
Hail the heav’n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris’n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King!”

Now, the very publicly honored new Sr P rides in on his white horse to save the day.

Insiders are aware that this man is potentially dangerous, and some early reports have come in that Glynn’s defective counseling MO hasn’t changed, and the good people of N. Denver are now the unfortunate recipients of Glynn’s “wisdom”.

Would anyone from the wild west like to comment?