Church Government
What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
THIS IS THE FINAL PART IN ANSWERING NORM EDWARDS' PAPER ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT Prophets - In the New Testament?(pages 13-15). I have no disagreement here with what Mr.Edwards has written. The "prophetic role" in the Church has often been overlooked and misunderstood. Many even claim it does not exists any more since the days of the first apostles. Nothing could be further from the truth! The study of the function of "prophet" is a most fascinating one. You may like to spend some time with a Bible Concordance like Strong's under the word "prophet." It is not the purpose of this work to elaborate on this function of the ministerial eldership. I will recommend to the reader a book that does do that(elaborates in detail on the function of the prophet). The book is entitled "HE GAVE GIFTS UNTO MEN - A Biblical Perspective of Apostles, Prophets, and Pastors" by Kenneth E. Hagin. While I do not agree with every sentence in this book, overall it is a work that the progressive Christian who believes in the "gifts of the Spirit" still being given today, should read. The wealth of information, wisdom, and experience related by Hagin in this book, is profound and edifying. Other Congregational Functions (p.15-19). Administrator, Leader, Shepherd, or Pastor No problem with what Norman Edwards says here. I have before shown that at the beginning of the NT Church, the apostles/leaders/overseers, were responsible for both the spiritual and physical duties of the Church. This can be clearly seen from chapter one to five in the book of Acts. When the Church was so large that physical cares were too great for the apostles, they were inspired to delegate the physical responsibilities to other persons, who had to meet certain qualifications as directed by the spiritual leaders(the apostles in this case). This was done in order that the shepherds could mainly continue in "prayer and the word." Certainly if the situation arose in some very small congregation, it would not be wrong for the Pastor/overseer to function in BOTH the spiritual and physical duties of the Church. But such a situation in my mind would be extremely rare today. The principle and example given to us in Acts 6 and elsewhere, is that persons are chosen from the congregation who meet the qualifications to look after the physical matters of the Church, and in so doing allowing the elders to concentrate on "prayer and the word." Apostle Covered above in some detail. Discerner of Spirits No disagreement with N.E. Some do have the gift of seeing deep into the attitude and motivation of people. Can be of great benefit to some churches who need that gift among them. Evangelist or Gospel Preacher No problem with what Mr. Edwards states. Exhorter Faith-filled person Giver Healer Help Knowledgeable person Love I am in full agreement Minister or Helps (service to others, physical or spiritual) I agree with some things stated by not with all. The third section of this book (also the first and second) gets to the "nitty-gritty" of where I disagree. Miracle worker Merciful person Teacher or speaker Tongues speaker and Interpretation Wise person I have no problem with what is stated. The Role of Elder (p.19,20). Most of what N.E. has said under this section I have no difficulty with. Where I may differ has been covered already in this work. It is interesting to note that he does allow for Titus to have selected the men who were to be appointed, who were to be "elders" in every city. He goes on to say that these men had to meet qualifications, but thinks Titus "not knowing everyone in every city, would certainly have asked the congregation which men were qualified, as in Acts 6." I have little trouble with a congregation being part of the process, as I have previously stated earlier, under certain situations and circumstances. I told you about Fred Coulter, the Biblical Church of God, the two congregations I was leading at the time, and how my appointment or ordination as an official Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ was determined. Yet to think that Titus, or to say that Titus did not know everyone in every city......well that is reading into, or adding something to the word that is just NOT THERE! We have no facts at all to say how much Titus had worked with paul in that area before Paul gave those instructions to him. He may well have known every congregation and all the leading men in each, for all we are told about the situation. We are just not told, pure and simple, and to guess otherwise is mere personal speculation at best, and doctrinal dogmatism at worst. Acts 6 may have been applied, but we just do not know, we are not told. Yet, if Acts was taken as a principle to be used in other situations, as I have before proved, the last word on the matter was still with the overseer/apostles/elders of the Church. And in the case of appointing elders in the churches on Crete, that would have been Titus, for he was by the authority of Paul (one of the great men used by the Lord and inspired in a special way) given that responsibility. I am in full agreement when Mr. Edwards says: "Elders are responsible for shepherding the flock of the Eternal and to serve as overseers. They are to be examples, not 'lords' over the others. They are to anoint and pray for those in need of help. They are to lay hands on others for spacial tasks. Those that do a good job of overseeing or teaching should be paid for their work. If leaders do sin, they should be corrected in front of the entire congregation....." Today, some who would follow E.N's paper as a "sacred cow" doctrine, are scared of the NT fact that men were employed full time in the work of the Lord and lived off the people they served, because that would make them a "special class" of persons, different from the rest of the congregation, in their eyes, and they would not want that. These people say "all are or can be elders in the church (not sure if they think women can also be) so why should some be paid and others not?" And with such a theology, I can see that would indeed create problems over "paid ministers." For who would decide which men would be full time and/or part time, with pay? For how long? I'm sure many men, if having secular work problems, out of work, not liking their work etc., would love to be employed by the Church. Having the doctrine that all men can be elders or ministers in the Church, could easily cause "politics" of carnality to abound, especially as "clicks" of personality do tend to evolve in any congregation of any size. I can see personality pulls and lobbying tactics going on behind closed doors, to influence the "vote" in WHO is, and for HOW LONG, the ones to be full/part time "paid" elders. I would love to observe say for 10 years, a 100 member plus congregation that teaches every man can be and is an elder, and can help lead the congregation when his turn arrives. I would love to watch them as they vote in and out their overseers. I can imagine the lobbying and politics in the corners, and the house parties to win votes. I would be surprised if any church congregation could survive that kind of free for all and still be doing any kind of work for God in ten years. Mr. Edwards goes through a number of OT examples and scriptures concerning "lots." Interesting, but besides the point when we come down to the question of the NT Church Government. For to bring "lots" over into the NT Church we would have to find NT examples and plain NT scriptures teaching us that we should, as congregations, "vote" on who our overseers/pastors/shepherds should be at times. And such teaching in the NT cannot be found! But, you say, what about Acts chapter one! Well, let's look at it and ask a few questions as we go. Did Jesus tell the disciples to wait for the promise they heard from Him? Yes, He did. What was the promise? It was the Holy Spirit (verses 1-5). Did the disciples continue together waiting? Yes, indeed (verses 12-14). Was Peter inspired to think about the prophecy concerning Judas and its fulfilment? He was (verses 15-20). Was there a basic qualification required to take the position held by Judas? There was (verses 21-22). How many were appointed? Who did the appointing? Two men were appointed. It was "they" - all the disciples who appointed. How it was done is not revealed. Then what did they do? They prayed (verses 24,25). After they prayed what did they do? God was to give the answer to them via "casting lots." Why did someone have to take Judas' place? The answer can be found earlier in part three of this study. This is an important question. Were they filled with the Holy Spirit yet? NO THEY WERE NOT! The majority had not yet received it. A few may have received a token of it when Jesus breathed on them and said, "receive you the Spirit" at an earlier date. The Spirit had not yet come as it would come on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). What are some of the attributes of having the Spirit? You may think about the "fruits of the Spirit." You may remember the verses that say it is the "power" of God, the "divine nature" of God, the "sound mind" of the Lord, the "love of God" shed abroad in our hearts, and other attributes. Jesus said that both the Father and He would come and live within the believer (John 14:23). It would be through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that they would do this. The Spirit would also GUIDE the believer into all truth (John 16:13). Now, put it all together! The disciples, when having to choose another to take the place of Judas, DID NOT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT! They did not have the nature, the power, the sound mind, the in-dwelling of the Father and Christ in them. They did not have the Spirit that would lead into all truth. They, in their natural state, could not decide which of the two men God wanted to fill the position and place held by Judas. They acted in this situation as others had acted over the centuries under the Old Covenant. They resorted to casting "lots" and praying to God to give the answer by this method. They were without the Spirit and so without the mind of Christ. They were very much still carnal humans without the nature of God in them. The Eternal did honor this use of an OT system, BUT IT WAS FROM THE OLD COVENANT! After the day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit, when the very mind and nature of God was implanted within the leaders of the Church and all the saints, WE NEVER READ OF OR HEAR ABOUT, WE ARE NEVER INSTRUCTED IN THE USE OF THIS "CASTING OF LOTS" AGAIN TO KNOW THE WILL OF GOD, FOR ANY MATTER OR DECISION WITHIN ANY CHURCH CONGREGATION! Under the New Covenant, the Spirit of the Lord should be quite sufficient, along with prayer and fasting, as NT examples show us (i.e. Acts 14:23; 13:1-3). I cannot see ANY need to ever have a congregation "vote" on anything except the issue of having to "disfellowship" a person from the church's fellowship. That subject I have covered in-depth with a separate study. I am here talking about the spiritual affairs of the Church, not the color of the carpet etc., which possibly may need a general vote on. With the Elders overseeing the spiritual matters in the Church, and certainly the doctrines and truths of the Lord are not "up for vote" but MAJOR issues being solved as in Acts 15. With official servers or deacons taking care of the physical matters, and all the saints with differing gifts of the Spirit being used for all the needs and benefits of the Church and community. With the Spirit of the Lord in every baptized member, WHY would VOTING ever have to be resorted to? It was used, and worked well under the OC, but the vast majority in Israel did NOT HAVE the Holy Spirit united with their minds. Today, under the NC, every begotten child of God in the Church, has both the Father and the Son living within them. Surely the Spirit of the Lord is able to guide the different people in different functions within the body of Christ to administer their duties wisely and correctly, especially when the "checks and balances" are in place, so no abuse can take hold (as much of this study has been about abuse and false doctrines). Then couple all that with "prayer and fasting"..........and I see that voting to know the will of God is old and passed away. It was physical and carnal for a physical and carnal people, but today God is to be worshipped "in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23,24). Bible Teaches Attitude not Form (p.22-23). I have no large disagreements with what Norm Edwards says under this heading. If Everyone is Free to Disagree, Can Anything be Accomplished? (p.23-25). I agree fully with the basic understanding and teaching that E.N. puts forth here. What Happens when Serious Disagreement Arises? (p.25-26). No problem here, I agree with that is stated. When Should a Person be "Put Out'? (p.26-28). I am in agreement. Conclusion: How should the Congregation be Governed (p.28-30). I agree with the overall teaching of attitude, but as this book of mine shows, I would disagree with some specifics in actual functioning of government within the Church of God. Is it "Rebellion" Not to Follow an Established "Church Leader"? (p.30-31). Fully agree. Was not "the Government of God" the First of the 18 Truths Restored by Herbert Armstrong? (p.31-32). I again agree with most of what Mr. Edwards says here. I have personally never seen the list of these so-called 18 Truths Restored by Herbert Armstrong. If Church Government was supposed to be the first on the list, then all I can say is the list starts off with a HUGE error! HWA did not restore the truth on NT church government, he CORRUPTED and PERVERTED it from the truth he once knew and wrote about! E.N. talks about the last 20 years of the life of HWA as if it was OTHER men who were to blame for the corruptions in the WCG, and not HWA also. I guess when you stay with an organization until well after the death of HWA you will blind yourself to the reality of the man heading that organization. To the idea that HWA did not know what was going on, I say, nonsense, absurdity, tomfoolery, fiddle-faddle, balderdash, and big files of garbage. Don't kid yourself for one minute! HWA knew exactly what he was doing once he had Stanley Rader off his back, out of the way, and unable to blackmail him any more. He knew exactly what he was doing after his wife died in 1967 and on into the 70's. From 1966 to 1986 HWA allowed a few new truths, some little "growing in grace and knowledge" of our Lord and Savior to continue in the WCG, but all that was FAR OUT WEIGHED BY THE MANY FALSE TEACHINGS, PERVERSIONS OF SCRIPTURE, CORRUPTIONS, AND CULTIC ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES, THAT WERE EXHIBITED BY HIMSELF PERSONALLY AND THE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE. Other Misunderstood Scriptures (p.32-34). I fully agree with what is written by Mr. Edwards in this section. So ends my critique of Norman Edwards' paper. Keith Hunt
|
No comments:
Post a Comment