The Primacy of Scripture And the Church

By David J. MacLeod [1] [2]

Introduction

During the time of my studies at Dallas Seminary in the 1960s I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Winifred G. T. Gillespie, the daughter of W. H. Griffith Thomas, the noted Anglican theologian and Bible teacher and one of the founders of the seminary. She asked me my church denomination, and I told her that I fellowshipped with the group she might know as the Christian Brethren or Plymouth Brethren. “Oh, the Brethren,” she said, and with that she had a tale to tell. After Griffith Thomas had been living in North America for some time he took his family on a trip to see family and friends in England. At one of the Anglican Churches where he ministered a tea was held in his honor. His daughter, “Winnie,” helped one of the ladies serve the tea. The woman asked Winnie if her father ministered among the Anglicans in America. “No,” said Winnie, “he says they’re all either ‘high’ or ‘dry.’ In America he ministers among the non-conformists” (a term that in Great Britain refers to all non-Anglicans: the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Congregationalists, the Brethren, etc.). “Oh,” the lady said, “I’ve always thought of the non-conformists as socially inferior and excessively biblical!” [3]

I was reminded of Winnie’s story when I read Harold Rowdon’s 1986 assessment of the Brethren assemblies in Great Britain. [4] Professor Rowdon raised the question, “What was the essence of the [early Brethren movement]?” He argued that it was not a rejection of clericalism and apostasy; nor was it the quest for unity or a concern for evangelism. The thing that above all distinguished them was the absolute priority which they accorded the Word of God. In fact, he asserted that the most characteristic meeting of those churches was not the “breaking of bread” meeting (although the form that meeting took was distinctive). Rather, it was the weekly Bible reading when they gathered, many with their Greek and Hebrew texts, to study the Scriptures.

A central place was given to the preaching and teaching of the Word. There was much evangelism, to be sure. In his early days as a minister J. N. Darby had seen six hundred to eight hundred persons converted per week in Ireland. [5] Yet they were more well-known for their expository Bible teaching. The regular expositions of B. W. Newton built a congregation of seven hundred in Plymouth, [6] George Müller and Henry Craik had a congregation of several hundred in Bristol, [7] and Bible teachers in Dublin would regularly preach to a congregation of over two thousand at Merrion Hall. Many of their number were prolific writers, and their works consisted of little more than Bible exposition.

The primacy of Scripture is seen in a letter of Darby, one of the two greatest teachers of the first generation of Brethren, the other being Newton. In his fifties he wrote a letter to Professor Friedrich A. G. Tholuck of Halle University, answering the latter’s questions about the Brethren. In his letter Darby reminisced about his days as an Anglican clergyman in Ireland. He remembered that as a result of a riding accident — his frightened horse had thrown him against a doorpost — he was laid up for several weeks, during which time he gave himself to the study of the Scriptures and their teaching about the church. He became troubled about the Established Church’s doctrinal infidelity, quality of care for Christian people and churches, and lack of spiritual discipline. Doubts entered his mind about his own relationship to the Anglican Church, and those doubts came from the Bible. “I felt…that the style of work was not in agreement with what I read in the Bible concerning the Church and Christianity.… These considerations pressed upon me from a Scriptural and practical point of view.… Much exercise of soul had the effect of causing the Scriptures to gain complete ascendancy over me.” [8] Darby’s remark about the “ascendancy of Scripture” identifies him as a believer in the doctrine of Scriptural authority, a doctrine which says “that the Bible, as the expression of God’s will to us, possesses the right supremely to define what we are to believe and how we are to conduct ourselves.” [9]

The Primacy of Scripture over the Church

Open Brethren, Biblical Authority, and “New Testament Church Principles”

The early Brethren found themselves in an era that has some affinities with our own. It was a time of international upheaval, the Napoleonic wars having recently ended. It was also a time of religious upheaval with a smorgasbord of ideas being bandied about in Great Britain. There was the sensational charismatic ministry of proto-Pentecostal minister, Edward Irving (1792–1834). John Henry Newman (1801–90) was beginning to write the tracts on the church Fathers that would lead many, himself included, into the arms of Rome. And there were the Brethren (and other dissenting groups) with their radical commitment to biblical authority and Christian devotion. As Darby noted in his review of Newman’s famous work, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, he, like Newman and others, was looking for the church, i.e., for the true doctrine of the church. [10]

This question (“What is the church?”) is again on the minds of many in this era of sensational charismatic ministries, of celebrated conversions to Anglicanism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy by well-known evangelicals, and of widespread apostasy from the doctrines (and morals) of Scripture by men who claim to be leaders in the church.

The question about the nature of the church was, in part, the impetus behind the conference for which this paper was prepared. It is a question about identity, specifically the identity of the Open Brethren assemblies. Our questions are: (1) “What is the church according to Scripture?” (2) “What do we mean by the autonomy of the local church?” (3) “What is the glue that holds local churches together?” i.e., “in what way are local churches interdependent?”

My assignment at the conference was not so much to answer these questions as it was to set forth the basis upon which they may be answered, viz., the sure foundation of Scripture. My conviction is that the only identity Open Brethren have that is worth keeping is that they are subject to the Bible alone. Their ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) is valuable because it is rooted in and arises from Scripture.

If Open Brethren were to be asked to relate the essentials of the New Testament’s teaching about the church, they would include the following items: [11]

The Church Is Apostolic: [12] The New Testament Is Its Sufficient and Authoritative Constitution

The church is founded upon the teaching of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:20), and it is in the succession of the apostles’ teaching (2 Tim. 2:2) that the church is truly apostolic. The teaching of the apostles is the sole and sufficient guide for defining, organizing, and guiding the church.

The church has departed from this essential and has undermined the authority of Scripture in a number of ways: (1) by the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession in which apostolic authority is passed on from the apostles to each succeeding generation of bishops by an unbroken line of ordinations, (2) by the transformation of the ordinances into sacraments giving them a dominant position (“The Word entirely cedes priority to the Sacrament”), [13] (3) by the assertion that the New Testament is too vague and self-contradictory to be a safe guide in organizing the church, and (4) by the argument that in the New Testament there is an evolution in the development of ecclesiology so that no uniform pattern of church order can be found.

The Church Is Regenerate: It Is the Universal [14] Community of Believers

Every Believer Is a Member of the Church

According to Yale University professor, Paul Minear, the New Testament uses over ninety figures and symbols to depict the church. [15] For the purpose of this paper we need only focus on two: the church is the people of God (1 Pet. 2:9–10) and the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22–23; 1 Cor. 12:27). Those who receive Christ become God’s children (John 1:12–13) and are added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47). By a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit they are united to the body of Christ, which is the church (1 Cor. 12:13).

Only Believers Are Members of the Church

The primacy of Scripture concerning the membership of the church has been rejected by the intentional intermixing of believers and unbelievers in Christian communities. French Bible teacher, Alfred Kuen, calls such groups “multitudinous churches,” as opposed to “free churches” or, more accurately, “believers’ churches.” [16]

Kuen argues that a number of factors early in the church’s history led to the rise of multitudinous churches: (1) Moralism, i.e., the teaching that a Christian is a follower of the moral principles of Christ, rather than a despairing sinner who placed his faith in Christ for salvation, [17] (2) Intellectualism, i.e., the shift in the meaning of faith from trust in the finished work of Christ to the intellectual adherence to a creed. [18] (3) Sacramentalism, i.e., the change in meaning of the ordinances of the church from symbolic acts to actual vehicles of divine grace. Infant baptism came to be seen as a rite that actually conferred regeneration. [19] (4) Ecclesiasticism or Institutionalism, i.e., the change in the understanding of the church from a community of equal brothers to a church of priests [20] who mediate salvation to the laymen and have a legal authority over them. [21]

The Church Is One: It Is a Spiritual Brotherhood United in Christ

In His high-priestly prayer (John 17:20–21) our Lord asks, “that they all may be one.” That He means more than just a unity of love is evident from the analogy He draws to the oneness of the Father and the Son. [22] This spiritual union was accomplished at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit united the people of God to Christ and to one another (1 Cor. 12:13). Paul says that there is “one body” (Eph. 4:4). It is striking that the New Testament uses descriptive names (e.g., “believers” [Acts 5:14], “disciples” [Acts 6:1], “saints” [Acts 9:13], “brethren” [Acts 9:30], “Christians” [Acts 26:28], etc.) [23] for the church that include every believer and exclude none. This is “a strong but silent witness” to the oneness of the body of Christ. [24]

The primacy of Scripture on this important doctrine is undermined by the open divisions in the church. [25] The so-called “Catholic” churches were ripped asunder in 1054, and the various Protestant bodies number in the hundreds. Instead of emphasizing the oneness of the body, some churches name themselves after a great person (Luther, Wesley). [26] Others have taken to themselves the name of an ordinance (e.g., the Baptists), or of the form of church government they favor (e.g., the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and the Congregationalists). Such denominationalism [27] has led to weakened church discipline, an imbalance of spiritual gifts, [28] a hardening of existing divisions, a lack of a common forum to resolve disputes, difficulty in effecting reconciliation, a compromising of the church’s witness to the world, creedal stagnation, distorted priorities, superficiality, [29] parochialism, and unhealthy competition among churches. [30]

The Church Is Holy: It Is Set Apart to God and to Moral and Doctrinal Purity

The Apostle Paul writes, “The temple of God is holy (ἅγιος, hagios), and that is what you are” (1 Cor. 3:17; cf. Eph. 2:21). He uses the imagery of the temple which was “sacred,” i.e., set apart for God and not to be desecrated in any way.

The holiness is objective or positional as the indicative (ἐστε, este) in verses 16 and 17 indicates, yet the clear implication is that a functional holiness is expected of Christians. [31] The holiness required is the teaching of pure doctrine in the church, specifically, the foundational doctrine of the gospel itself with its basic content of salvation through Christ. [32] In a number of other passages the early church also testified to its holiness by exercising discipline in the church. Both moral evil (1 Cor. 5) and doctrinal evil (Titus 3:10) were subject to discipline. [33]

The primacy of Scripture in the matter of the church’s holiness has been compromised in a number of ways since apostolic times. [34] It was compromised subtly by an institutional interpretation of the phrase “communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed (7th-8th cent., a.d.). Originally the expression was interpreted personally of the fellowship of all true believers. [35] It came to be interpreted impersonally as “participation in the sacred things,” i.e., the sacramental participation in grace through baptism and the Eucharist. [36] The New Testament knows nothing of such a sacramental view of the infusion of grace. The church is holy because it is founded on the sanctifying act and word of God in the work of Christ (Heb. 2:11; 10:10).

The church’s holiness is compromised in far more obvious ways in the modern world. Newsmagazines carry stories of bishops who deny the virgin birth and deity of Christ, reject the inspiration of Scripture, and condone the ordination of practicing homosexuals to the ministry. Immoral behavior is tolerated even in evangelical churches. Most churches will not discipline a member even if his/her adultery, fornication, drunkenness or homosexuality is commonly known. [37] Theological schools tolerate, then condone, then celebrate false doctrine.

The Church Is Christocentric: Jesus Christ Is Its Head

“Ecclesiology,” says University of Basel professor, Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “is simply Christology.” [38] He argues that all sociological attempts to explain the church are futile because the church can only be explained by its link to the person and work of Christ. The church is the body of Christ (σῶμα Χριστοῦ, sōma Christou), and Christ is the head (κεφαλή, kephalē) of the body (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–13, 27). These metaphors stress the unity of Christ and His people, and the term head specifically stresses that He is leader or ruler over the church. He exercises a position of power and authority over His people. [39] The early church witnessed to the headship of Christ by recognizing no individual man as the head of the church. Leadership was always invested in a plurality of leaders (first apostles and soon elders). This was true of the universal church and of the local church, which is a replica or a miniature of the universal church. [40]

The primacy of Scripture in its teaching that Christ is the sole head (“Chief Shepherd,” 1 Pet. 5:4) of the church was denied in practice soon after the death of the apostles. A plurality of elders gave way [41] to a monarchical bishop, [42] and the institutional Church was ultimately ruled by the Supreme Pontiff, i.e., the Pope, in Rome. Even in the Protestant churches the pastor as an officer over the flock is a firmly entrenched tradition — a tradition that denies to Christ His place as head of the church. [43]

The Church Is Spiritual: The Holy Spirit Is Christ’s Vicar in His People

The Apostle Paul spoke of the church as “God’s household…being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:19–22). What was true of the universal church was also true of the local assembly: “Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you” (1 Cor. 3:16)? It was the conviction of the early Christians that the risen Christ had poured out the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:33). The Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth by taking it from Christ and declaring it to His inspired men (John 14:26; 16:14). He was active in singling out men for service (Acts 6:5) and in appointing elders for the church (Acts 20:28). He equipped each Christian with abilities for service (1 Cor. 12:4–11), gave direction in the sending out of workers (Acts 13:2), and empowered people to preach the Word (Acts 4:8; 1 Thess. 1:5). [44]

This sense of fellowship with the Holy Spirit (Phil. 2:1) was coupled with an understanding of the church as a brotherhood, God’s family. Their self understanding was of a fellowship of believing men, not an impersonal institution. They showed hospitality (Acts 16:15; Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2) and cared for their needy (Acts 6:1–6). They had meetings in which they ate together in remembrance of Christ (Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 11:20–34).While there were certain set elements to each meeting (teaching [Acts 11:26], prophesying [Acts 11:28], singing [1 Cor. 14:15], prayer [1 Tim. 2:8], the Lord’s Supper [1 Cor. 11:17–26]), there was also an element of spontaneity. [45] There was a looking to the Spirit of God to guide in the meetings of the church (Eph. 5:18–21). There was liberty for various brothers to teach, offer a word of wisdom, give a word of knowledge, etc. 1 Corinthians 14:26 indicates a lack of fixed order [46] in the meetings. Cambridge professor, C. F. D. Moule, wrote:

The most characteristic Christian way of guidance was in the kind of setting indicated in [1 Cor. 14], where the Christians assemble, each with a psalm or a teaching or a revelation or a burst of ecstasy: and the congregation exercises discernment. That is how Christian ethical decisions were reached: informed discussion, prophetic insight, ecstatic fire — all in the context of the worshipping, and also discriminating, assembly, with the good news in Jesus Christ behind them, the Spirit among them, and before them the expectation of being led forward into the will of God. [47]

The primacy of Scripture with regard to the Spirit’s role in the life of the church was undermined by the formalization of the church’s life. [48] Paul confronts this tendency in Thessalonica: “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:19–21). In the years following the passing of the apostles there occurred a series of decisive shifts of emphasis. First, there was the formalization of ministries. Biblical eldership was replaced by episcopacy in which rank was divorced from function. The bishop now stood in the place accorded by Paul to the Spirit. He was owed submission due to his official position, not by virtue of his works. Ignatius wrote, “Let no one do any of the things appertaining to the Church without the bishop.” [49] There was the formalization of worship with simple familial “meetings” being replaced by formal gatherings with liturgical forms of service. In place of mutual ministry of the Word, prayer, and common involvement in the Supper, extemporaneous elements began to disappear, ritual was introduced, and official control of the Supper was placed in the hands of the bishop.

The Church Is a Priesthood: Every Believer Is a Minister of God

During O. T. times the nation of Israel had a priesthood, a class of mediatorial men, distinct from their fellow Israelites, who carried out the ministerial work of sacrifice, representation, and access to God. They wore distinctive clothing and had special privileges; they alone could approach the altar and enter the sanctuary. Under the new covenant all this changed. Every believer is a priest of God (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6). The mediatorial ministry of Christ is undelegated and untransmissible. The eldership of the church is essentially pastoral, never mediatorial, and the words priest, sacrifice, and altar as terms of clerical status and privilege are not characteristic of apostolic teaching. When the term priest is used of the church it is always in the plural, “priests,” (Rev. 1:6), or else it is used collectively, i.e., “priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5). “The truth, therefore, is that Christianity is, not has, a priesthood.” [50] In the New Testament all Christians are “laity,” i.e., “the people of God” (“people” = λαός, laos, cf. Tit. 2:14), and all Christians are “ministers” (Eph. 4:12). [51] All have access to the presence of God through Christ (Heb. 10:19–25), all may offer sacrifices (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb. 13:15–16), all are gifted to serve (1 Cor. 12:4–11), and all were free to participate in the meetings of the church (1 Cor. 14:26).

The primacy of Scripture was jettisoned within a century with the formalization of responsibilities and the establishment of a clerical class. Elaborate titles, special garments, impressive rituals, religious calendars, and ecclesiastical ornaments set these “professional Christians” apart from the laity. Eduard Schweizer says the church as a body consisting of members living in their mutual addressing, asking, challenging, comforting, and helping one another has been exchanged for a church of services in which a theater audience looks on while paid actors act out their parts on the stage. [52]

The Church Has Ritual: It Practices Symbolic Acts That Were Instituted by Christ

The Head of the church instituted two practices or ordinances that were to be permanently practiced by His people. An ordinance [53] may be defined as a symbolic rite that sets forth the central truths of the Christian faith and was (1) instituted by our Lord in the Gospels, (2) practiced by the early church in the Book of Acts, (3) expounded by the apostles in the epistles, and (4) obligatory upon every believer. [54] There are two practices in the New Testament that fit this definition: baptism (Matt. 28:19–20; Acts 8:38; Rom. 6:4–6), and the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19–20; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23–26). Baptism, i.e., the immersion of believers in water (Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36–38; 9:18; 10:44–48; 16:30–34; 18:8; 19:1–5), is an act which symbolizes one’s entrance into the church, the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12–13). [55] The Lord’s Supper, the regular partaking of the elements of bread and wine with other believers, symbolizes one’s continuance in the body, or life in it (cf. 1 Cor. 11:25). [56]

The primacy of Scripture has been seriously compromised by the corrupt practices that appeared in the second and third centuries. With the ascendancy of Emperor Constantine (a.d. 312) came the baptism of unbelievers and the multitudinous church. Sprinkling and pouring gradually replaced biblical baptism (immersion), and sacramental notions gradually replaced the symbolic meaning of the act. The Catholic doctrine of baptism is sacramental, [57] imparting salvation (the new birth) in an event which makes no personal claim on the person. It works automatically and mechanically (ex opere operato), even if the baptized is an infant who is incapable of saving faith. [58] The doctrine of baptismal regeneration has produced generations of people who have never been genuinely born again.

The diminishing of Scripture is seen even more dramatically in the evolution of the Lord’s Supper into the sacrament of the mass. In New Testament times the Supper was an act of fellowship, which believers regularly repeated in obedience to the command of the Lord in order to build themselves up and strengthen their hope in His return. It came to be viewed as a miracle in which the elements were changed into the body and blood of Christ and by which saving grace was infused into the faithful. Due to this miracle the Sacrament becomes more important than the Word. “The Supper, understood as Sacrament, is now placed without competitor in the center.” Instead of a lowly supper, it became a sacrifice offered in a holy place upon an altar. Once again there was a barrier between the administrator of the holy things and the “profane” people. The new covenant concepts of the people of God as “brothers” and “saints” and the whole of everyday life as sanctified to service for God (Rom. 12:1–2) was annulled by a return to the division between the sacred and the profane sphere. [59]

The Church Is Self-Supported: Only Christians Contribute to Its Work

In the early church there was a conviction that the Christian life was a stewardship in which the Lord has “richly supplied us with all things” (1 Tim. 6:17). Financial giving to the work of the Lord was an expression of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1–2) and the believers’ dedication to Christ (2 Cor. 8:5). In Acts 11:29 it is the “disciples,” i.e., believers, who contribute to help the poor in Judea. In 3 John 7 the Apostle commends servants of the Lord who accepted no financial support from the Gentiles, i.e., from unbelievers. That only Christians should support the Lord’s work is evident because: (1) only Christians are stewards of God’s grace, (2) this is apostolic practice [Acts 11:29], and (3) it protects the free offer of grace from confusion [Matt. 10:8; 2 Cor. 11:7; Acts 20:35]. Not only did the apostolic church believe that only Christians should give, but that every Christian, rich (1 Tim. 6:17–19) and poor (2 Cor. 8:1–2), should give.

Money was given to repay God’s servants (1 Cor. 9:13–14; Gal. 6:6), care for the needy among God’s people (Rom. 15:26–27; 2 Cor. 8:13–15), and extend Christ’s message (Phil. 4:10–19). Giving was to be voluntary, not forced (2 Cor. 8:3; 9:5, 7), generous, not parsimonious (2 Cor. 8:2; 9:6, 13; 1 Tim. 6:18), enthusiastic, not grudging (2 Cor. 8:4, 11–12; 9:7), deliberate, not haphazard (2 Cor. 9:7; Acts 11:29), regular, not spasmodic (1 Cor. 16:2), proportionate, not arbitrary (1 Cor. 16:2), sensible, not reckless (2 Cor. 8:11-12; 1 Cor. 16:2; Acts 4:34–35), and unobtrusive, not ostentatious (Matt. 6:1–4). [60]

The Apostle Paul’s approach to money is instructive. He preached without charge so as not to harm his message (Acts 18:3; 20:34–35), yet he could candidly rebuke an assembly for financially taking advantage of him (2 Cor. 11:7–8). [61] He did not solicit funds for himself, yet he mentioned the needs of other workers and elders (Tit. 3:13; 1 Tim. 5:17–18). He solicited funds only from believers and did not use pressure tactics.

The giving of money for the promotion of the work of Christ is another area where the primacy of Scripture over our lives has been seriously compromised. In multitudinous churches baptized unbelievers are regularly solicited for money. Christian organizations repeatedly appeal to secular foundations for grants to support their causes. The unbelieving world looks on with bemused disgust as TV preachers raise large sums to promote their lavish lifestyles. [62] Religious organizations take funds from professing Christians and contribute them to political and military causes.

Biblical Authority and the Structure of the Church

Robert Saucy, professor of systematic theology at Talbot Theological Seminary, has said that it is “the move toward leadership in the church by a plurality of elders” that “has given rise to the [recent] question of authority” in the church. [63] It is to this issue, therefore, that we must turn our attention.

The Pre-Critical Opinions [64]

Prior to modern critical scholarship it was generally accepted that there was a single pattern for governing the church. This view is still accepted, in different ways by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, High Anglicanism, and by many Reformed and Evangelical Protestants. Catholicism, [65] Orthodoxy, [66] and Anglo-Catholicism [67] are hierarchical churches with their bishops claiming apostolic succession in direct continuity with the early church. Reformed and Evangelical groups holding to presbyterian or congregational church structure claim apostolic succession in their professed obedience to the teaching of the apostles found in the New Testament.

Of particular interest to readers of this journal are the opinions of the early Brethren on this question. [68] Early leader, Anthony N. Groves, argued that eldership was taught in Scripture. [69] At the well-known assembly in Plymouth leadership was provided by a plurality of elders. After a two-week retreat (February 1839) to consider church order, George Müller and Henry Craik, of Bethesda Chapel in Bristol, concluded that the church should be governed by a plurality of elders. [70] Similar conclusions were arrived at by Müller’s friend, the saintly Robert Chapman, who carried on a work in Barnstable.

The views of John Nelson Darby were quite different, and his views had tremendous influence on the Exclusive wing of the Brethren as well as on the third stream of Brethren, called by McLaren, “the revival Brethren.” [71] This third group is particularly relevant to us in that they carried on much of the evangelistic and assembly-planting efforts in North America.

Darby taught that churches or missionaries today cannot lawfully appoint elders because there is no one with God-given authority to officially appoint them. He defended his position with two arguments: (1) In the New Testament only apostles or their delegates appointed elders [Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:22; Tit. 1:5]. Because there are no longer apostles and apostolic delegates in the church elders can no longer be appointed. [72] (2) The church fell into spiritual ruin with the departure of the apostles, and God did not allow the office or any external structure of the church to continue after their time. [73]

The Modern Critical Consensus

Modern biblical scholarship brought about a new understanding of church government in the nineteenth century. New tools and disciplines brought about an examination of the Scriptures that was in many cases more exact, but in others more unbelieving. [74] New Testament commentator and Anglican bishop, J. B. Lightfoot, is an example of the kind of devout scholarship that represents the finest work of the time. In a now celebrated essay he demonstrated that the churches of the New Testament era were governed by elders. The term bishop was a designation of the same office, i.e., the elders were the bishops. Episcopacy developed out of the office of elder, and was not a direct development out of the office of apostle. [75]

A more negative conclusion was offered by Lightfoot’s friend, Cambridge scholar F. J. A. Hort, who asserted that there is no evidence in the New Testament that either our Lord or His apostles established any church offices that were permanently binding. [76] Following a sociological approach, Oxford scholar Edwin Hatch argued that organization in the early church developed gradually and that the various elements of that organization were patterned on contemporary societies of various kinds. [77] In short, New Testament ecclesiology was a culturally relative thing.

Similar discussions were being carried on in nineteenth century German scholarship. In an oft-cited book Leipzig scholar, Rudolf Sohm, argued that the early church had no formal organization. Where the risen Christ is present (“Where two or three are gathered together in My Name,” Matt. 18:20) there is the church. There was no need for human officers and organization. Such developments are the essence of Catholicism and are due to sociological influences, especially the example of the state. Such outward forms represent a new law that has become binding on every Christian. [78] Sohn did not deny the existence of apostles and elders in the New Testament church, but he argued that their leadership was of a “purely spiritual” variety. All Christians were ministers, and there was no official leadership class. The visible church with an ordained hierarchy is due to “the impulses of the natural man.” [79]

Sohm’s views were strongly opposed by the great church historian, Adolf Harnack, [80] who wrote with the critical assumptions of liberal biblical scholarship. The early church was organized from the beginning, he argued. It had two distinct kinds of ministry — a universal and a local. The first, a charismatic ministry comprising Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers, was universal and derived its authority from divine appointment. The second consisted of elder-bishops and deacons, appointed by popular election in particular local churches with functions limited to the church that had elected them. [81] By the time the Didache [82] was written the former charismatic ministry was passing away and was bequeathing its honors to the administrative class of bishops and deacons. Harnack saw church organization as due to the desire of man to externalize his religion. When he spoke of the divine appointment of the charismatic ministry he really meant that it was a human necessity, i.e., man by nature demands such organization. [83]

The next major voice to address the topic was Oxford scholar, B. H. Streeter. He is the chief protagonist of a view that has had great influence in the twentieth century. He argued that in the New Testament there can be traced an evolution in church order. He maintained that at the end of the New Testament era there existed, in different provinces of the Roman empire, different systems of church government. “Among these the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, and the Independent can each discover the prototype of the system to which he himself adheres.” [84] Streeter’s view that the churches of the New Testament era are like a “coat of many colors,” varying both in foundation and in organization has received the benediction of many later scholars. [85] His book was welcomed with relief, the Archbishop of Canterbury humorously observed, as the solution to the whole debate over New Testament ecclesiology. The question had at last been settled and, in the words of Alice in Wonderland, “Everybody has won, and all shall have prizes.” [86]

The present state of affairs in liberal, academic scholarship is illustrated by three German scholars who are frequently cited in contemporary works. Edward Schweizer, New Testament professor at the University of Zurich, flatly states, “There is no such thing as the New Testament Church Order.” In New Testament times circumstances were quite varied in different churches, he asserts, and it is vital for the ecumenical dialogue that we admit this. [87] Ernst Käsemann, formerly Professor of New Testament at the University of Tübingen, likewise asserts that there were different church governments in the New Testament era, with elder rule in place in Jerusalem but no formal structure in the Pauline churches. [88] Hans Küng, one of Catholicism’s most influential theologians, sees significant change within the New Testament era, but in the Pastoral Epistles he sees the stage being set for a monarchic episcopate. [89]

What is particularly significant for the present study is the attitude of such scholars to the veracious authority of Scripture. They do not believe that the Bible tells the truth, and therefore they do not believe that the Bible can determine the true path for the people of God in practicing church government. The question at hand is the New Testament’s teaching on elders. In the Book of Acts (cf. 14:23) and in the Pastoral Epistles it says that Paul appointed elders and gave detailed instructions about their qualifications. [90] These scholars make the following three observations: (1) Paul does not use the term elder in his nine letters to churches [Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians], so it is clear that he did not have a consistent doctrine of eldership. [91] (2) Luke is historically unreliable when he says that Paul appointed elders in the churches. [92] (3) The Pastoral Epistles are not authentic, i.e., they were written by someone other than Paul. [93]

An evangelical response to these dogmas of “critical orthodoxy” is beyond the scope of this paper. It will suffice to say that evangelical scholars with impeccable academic credentials and believing hearts have vigorously responded to them all. [94]

The Contemporary Evangelical Impasse

Happily all discussion about church order in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has not been marred by rejection of biblical authority and a denial of the Bible’s sufficiency in the realm of church government. Mention has already been made of Lightfoot’s famous essay which, while disastrous to episcopacy, was a fine example of devout biblical scholarship in search of truth. During this time period there were many examples of Christian scholars who, while differing among themselves over which form of church government was correct, agreed that the Bible contained authoritative guidelines for believers to follow. Proponents of episcopacy, [95] presbyterianism, [96] congregationalism, [97] and elder rule of independent churches [98] all wrote defenses of their systems, and all used the Bible to support their conclusions.

At the same time, however, there is a growing chorus of evangelical voices denying that Scripture gives authoritative guidance for the organization of the church. That denial usually comes in one of three ways: First it is asserted by some that there is no single form of church organization taught in the New Testament. [99] Second, other scholars make an exaggerated distinction between the interpretation and application of narrative texts, in this case, the texts that describe the apostolic practice of appointing elders. The second objection is often coupled with the assertion that the Pastoral Epistles, for example, are a form of ad hoc correspondence [100] addressing the specific problems of a single audience and are not to be applied to our modern situation. [101] Third, there are Christian scholars and writers who apply a kind of pragmatic cultural relativism to the question of church government. “The major forms of church structures [Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, etc.] are a matter of history and culture rather than of revelation and apostolic tradition.… Church structure must be flexible and adaptable, never fixed or restrictive.” It must adapt to its “environment and cultural milieu” and be able to work “among a people with a unique psychology.” [102] “Church order — certainly in our time — should be loose-leaf.” [103]

In summary, the contribution of evangelical scholars to the debate is somewhat troubling. While they are to be lauded for treating the Bible seriously, they present less than a united voice to a local congregation looking for counsel in organizing itself. On the one hand there are vigorous defenses of conflicting church polities, and on the other there is the view that the Bible offers no normative view. In light of this apparent impasse, I would like to ask (and answer) three important questions.

The Biblical View Defended

Does the New Testament Teach a Single Form of Church Government?

Leadership by a Council of Elders. In spite of widespread opinion to the contrary the evidence in the New Testament for a single form of church government, viz., pastoral oversight by a council of elders,[104] is overwhelming. [105] Elders are found in early, middle, and later time periods in the New Testament era; they are found in key cities in three different geographical areas (Palestine, Greece, and Asia Minor); and they are found in both Jewish and Graeco-Roman settings. They are found in Judea and the surrounding area around a.d. 41 (Acts 11:30). [106] They governed the church in Jerusalem at the time of the great council in the autumn of a.d. 49 (Acts. 15). Among the Pauline churches leadership by elders was established in the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, [107] and Antioch [108] (Acts 14:23 [a.d. 48–49]); in the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17 [a.d. 57]; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; 5:17–25 [a.d. 60]); in the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1 [a. d. 62]) [109] ; and in the island of Crete (Titus 1:5 [a. d. 66]). [110]

Elders are acknowledged or commended by virtually every New Testament writer who writes about church leadership (Luke, Paul, author of Hebrews, James, Peter). [111] According to Peter’s first epistle elders existed in churches throughout northwestern Asia Minor: Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1). There are strong indications that elders existed in churches in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5:12), and James (5:14–15) and the author of Hebrews assume the same pattern (Heb. 13:7, 17).

A variety of arguments have been raised in defense of the singularity of pastors, i.e., the view that the New Testament supports the notion of a single pastor over each congregation. The main arguments are nicely summarized by Baptist scholar, Manfred Kober: [112] (1) Paul’s use of the singular overseer when listing the qualifications of the elder in 1 Timothy 3:1–2 suggests a single pastor because he uses the plural deacons when he sets forth the qualifications of deacons. In short, each church should have one pastor and several deacons. It is clear, however, that the singular ἐπίσκοπος in 1 Timothy 3 is generic because in 1 Timothy 5:17 he moves to the plural πρεσβύτεροι. [113]

(2) The individual “angels” to whom the seven letters of Revelation 2 and 3 are sent are best understood as the “messengers,” i.e., the individual pastors [114] or bishops [115] of the seven churches. This does not do justice to the term ἄγγελος, however, which elsewhere in Revelation (1:1; 5:2, 11: 7:2, 11, etc.) refers to superhuman beings, i.e., angels. [116]

(3) The New Testament gives several examples of local pastoral leadership by one individual: Timothy in Ephesus [1 Timothy 1:2, 3], James in Jerusalem [Acts 15:13], Epaphras in Colossae [Col. 4:12; Philemon 23], Epaphroditus in Philippi [Phil. 2:25], and Titus in Crete [Tit. 1:4, 5].

To call these men pastors is to read post-apostolic practice back into the New Testament. Timothy and Titus were apostolic delegates who served in the spreading of the gospel and strengthening the various churches under Paul’s care. They did pastoral work, to be sure, but always under Paul’s authority and direction (cf. 1 Thess. 3:2; Phil. 2:19, 20; 1 Cor. 16:10, 11; 1 Tim. 1:3). Epaphroditus was an envoy of the Philippian church who was sent to minister to Paul. Epaphras was probably the original evangelist in Colossae (Col. 1:7–8; 4:12–13). At the time Colossians was written (a.d. 61) he was with the Apostle in Rome and had no immediate plans to return home. [117] Although he did labor among the churches of Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, there is no evidence that he was the solitary pastor of any of them. James was an apostle who ministered to the Jews and was considered a “pillar” of the Jerusalem church. Significantly, neither Paul nor Luke makes clear his formal relationship to either the Twelve or to the Jerusalem elders.

Two further observations are in order: First, a number of the churches in which these men worked had a plurality of pastor-elders (Jerusalem, Ephesus, Philippi). Kober never makes clear the relationship of these key men (Timothy, Titus, James, etc.) to the pastor-elders of the churches. If they were the individual pastors of their churches, who were the other pastors (elders/overseers) mentioned in those churches? Second, the doctrine of a plural eldership does not deny that God raises up extraordinarily gifted men to teach and lead His people. There are evangelists, missionaries, teachers, and preachers whom God raises up to plant churches, teach, counsel, write, and correct His people. He may even gift one of the elders to be primus inter pares (“first among a council of equals”) [118] among his fellow elders in a church. In fact, James may have been just such a man in Jerusalem.

(4) In the New Testament era the Christians of a given city or locality made up the local church of that area. This local church (e.g., the 5,000 member- church of Jerusalem) would then be divided up into various house churches. While the city or locale might have a plurality of elders, it is likely that each house church had only one. [119] In that the local church in our culture is based on the individual house church, it is best that we have a single pastor over each congregation. [120]

Four observations are in order: First, the churches in such places as Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch do not seem to have been large, yet Paul appointed elders (plural) in each church (Acts 14:23). [121] Second, the believers addressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is commonly believed, [122] met as a house church, yet they are exhorted to submit to their leaders (plural, cf. Heb. 13:17). Third, the church in Jerusalem, several persons thousand in size, is consistently spoken of as the church in Jerusalem, not churches (Acts 5:11; 8:1, 3; 11:22; 12:1, 5; 15:4, 22; 18:22). Until times of persecution the believers of that city met on the east side of the outer court of the Temple, a place known as Solomon’s colonnade (Acts 2:44, 46; 5:12, 42). They viewed themselves as a united congregation (Acts 2:44, 46; 5:12; 6:2), and were led by the Twelve Apostles, and later by the elders and James (Acts 2:42; 4:35, 37; 5:2–6; 6:2–4, 6; 8:14–17; 9:27; 15:4–29).

Finally, the Christians at Ephesus who met in various homes (cf. 1 Cor. 16:19) are spoken of by Luke as the “church” in Ephesus and not “the churches” (Acts 20:17). He also speaks of the “flock,” not the “flocks,” over which the Holy Spirit has placed elders (Acts 20:28). The most natural reading of the text indicates that there was one church in Ephesus and one body of elders to guide it. How the elders organized themselves among the various house churches the text just does not say, and it is pure speculation to argue that each house church had a single pastor. [123]

(5) Dr. Kober’s final argument is based on the symbolism of a shepherd and his flock. Just as there is one Chief Shepherd, viz., Christ, over the universal church (John 10:11, 16), so there should be one shepherd (pastor) over the local church who is solely responsible for it (1 Pet. 5:2, 3). This final point is actually an assertion with no support other than the traditional practice of Kober’s own denomination. I would make two points in response: First, Christ is the Chief Shepherd in the church, whether in its universal or local form. He, not a human pastor, is the “head” of the church (Eph. 1:22–23). Jesus did not say, “Where two or three have gathered together, there the pastor is in the midst.” What He did say is, “there I am in their midst” (Matt. 18:20). Second, in the very passage Kober cites (viz., 1 Pet. 5:1–4) Peter addresses the “elders” (plural) who shepherd a flock (sing.) under the Chief Shepherd.

A Twofold Pattern for the “Official” Ministry. A twofold pattern for official ministry [124] (ἐπίσκοπος [episkopos], i.e., oversight and διάκονος [diakonos], i.e., service) is outlined in 1 Timothy 3:1–13 and is uniform throughout the New Testament era. The same twofold pattern is found in the Philippian assembly (Phil. 1:1). It is reflected in the early division of labor at Jerusalem between the oversight, ministry of the Word, and prayer by the Apostles and the aid to the widows on the part of the Seven (Acts 6:1–4). As Knight observes, there is not only conceptual parallel but also linguistic parallels. [125] Peter, one of the twelve apostles, later refers to himself as a “fellow elder” (συμπρεσβύτερος, 1 Pet. 5:1). The task for which the Seven were elected is referred to as the daily διακονία (diakonia, v. 1, “serving”) without further qualification, and their activity is described as διακονεῒν τραπέζαις (diakonein trapezais, v. 2, “to serve tables”). The linguistic connection with 1 Timothy 3:8–13 and to those who are described as διάκονοι (diakonoi) and by the verb διακονεῒν (diakonein) [126] is striking and is in accord with the division of labor in conceptual terms in Acts 6. In summary, these three passages (Acts 6:1–4; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1–13) show a twofold division of labor in early, middle, and later time periods in the New Testament era church, in key cities, in three various geographical areas (Palestine, Greece, and Asia Minor), and in both Jewish and Gentile settings.

Does the New Testament Teach a Normative Form of Church Government?

It is the conviction of the present writer that “the instructions given to elders, as well as the eldership structure itself, are to be regarded as apostolic directives (Titus 1:5) that are normative for churches today.” [127] How are we to reply, then, to those who argue that passages describing church government are no more than ad hoc advice for the time and not normative instructions for all time? I would respond, first of all, by saying that we should not deny the obvious situational setting of various passages of Scripture. George Knight says we should go further. “Every book within the canonical Scriptures would seem to warrant the designation of being ad hoc. That is the very nature of Scripture. It consists of documents given by God through the writers to His people in the particular situations in which they find themselves.” [128]

The fallacy that some contemporary scholars draw from this observation is that the contents and teachings of the documents therefore must be ad hoc. Knight offers two reasons why it is wrong to conclude that ad hoc documents contain only ad hoc teaching. First, those addressing ad hoc situations often intend to give general teachings and lasting principles that apply to all human beings. A classic example is the giving of the Ten Commandments. Although given in an ad hoc situation (cf. Exod. 20:2), our Lord, James, and the apostle Paul all appeal to them as God’s intended standard for conduct for all human beings, including Gentiles (Matt. 19:17–19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; James 2:8–13; Rom. 13:8–10). Another example is found in the seven letters to the churches in Asia Minor where the ad hoc commendations, warnings and promises to individual first century churches are clearly intended for the church at large — “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev. 2:7, etc.).

Second, the Apostle Paul specifically says that these Scriptures “were given for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4; cf. 1 Cor. 9:8–10; 10:5, 11). His insistence on the fact that the Scriptures were written for us, which he reinforces by a denial that they were written only for the original recipients or subjects (Rom. 4:23–24) has “enormous implications for our overarching approach to Scripture and for our general hermeneutical stance or approach to Scripture. To let an ad hoc approach become our first or dominant approach is…to go exactly counter not only to the hermeneutical approach Paul himself uses, but also that which in these passages he demonstrates to be the approach faithful to God’s purpose in causing the Scriptures to be written for us.” [129] What is so instructive about Paul’s use of the Scriptures is “his understanding that they directly instruct us and apply to us. He writes almost as if there were no gap at all between the Scriptures written years before and the ‘us’ for whom they are written as instruction.… Since this principle is true of the OT Scriptures written before the end of the ages has come, how much more is it true of the NT Scriptures written in the period of the end of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11). [130]

There are indications in the New Testament that the pattern of oversight by a plurality of elders is normative and not just ad hoc. Not only is there a consistent pattern of plural elders among the churches, but there is also instruction about elders given to the churches, [131] and there is instruction and exhortation given directly to elders. [132]

Furthermore, eldership best harmonizes with and promotes the true nature of the New Testament church. [133] There are at least four ways in which leadership by a plurality of elders complements the nature of the church: [134] First, it complements the church’s nature as a family of brothers and sisters. [135] A plural eldership, unlike a formal clerical structure with its special titles, sacred clothes, chief seats, [136] and lordly terminology, best expresses the church’s character as a brotherhood. [137] Second, it complements the church’s nature as a nonclerical community. The New Testament knows nothing of a consecrated class of clerics who carry out the ministry for the laymen. Instead, every member of the church is a holy saint (1 Cor. 1:2), a royal priest (1 Pet. 2:5–10), and a Spirit-gifted member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:12). [138]

Third, the plural eldership complements the church’s nature as a humble-servant community. When it functions properly, shared leadership manifests mutual regard for one another, submission to one another, patience with one another, consideration of one another’s interests, and deference to one another. Finally, plural eldership complements the church’s nature by guarding and promoting the preeminence and position of Christ over the local assembly. The apostles practiced a form of church government that reflected the distinctive, fundamental truth that Christ was the Ruler, Head, Lord, and Pastor of the church. “There is only one flock and one Pastor (John 10:16), one body and one Head (Col. 1:18), one holy priesthood and one great High Priest (Heb. 4:14–16), one brotherhood and one Older Brother (Rom. 8:29), one building and one Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:5–8), one Mediator, one Lord. Jesus Christ is ‘Senior Pastor,’ and all others are His undershepherds (1 Pet. 5:4).” [139]

Does the New Testament Teach a Supra-Cultural Form of Church Government?

Well-known British scholar, Alec Motyer, has said that “it is not as much as hinted in the New Testament that the church would ever need — or indeed should ever want or tolerate — any other local leadership than that of the eldership group.” [140] What then is to be said in answer to those who argue for a “circumstantial flexibility” in most aspects of church government; who assert that to insist upon one normative form is rigidly to level all local bodies before an “insensitive monolithic” standard; [141] and who insist that the form of polity adopted by a local community of Christians depends upon the cultural norms or sociological realities of the area in which the church finds itself. [142]

I would make four observations in answer to the argument that church government should vary with the culture in which Christians find themselves. [143] First, it is untrue to the cultural universality of New Testament ecclesiology, [144] i.e., the presence of elder rule in every cultural grouping of the apostolic age. It is often argued that because the first Christians were Jews, the office of elder was taken over from the religious environment with which they were familiar, viz., those of the synagogue. [145] This assertion is weak for two reasons: (1) It fails to take seriously the sovereign control of Israel’s history by which the Lord guided the nations so that the office was already familiar to the earliest Christians. [146] (2) It does not take seriously the installation of elders in Gentile churches. A case in point is the Philippian assembly. When Paul came to the city he did not go to the synagogue, because there were not enough Jews in the city to have one. [147] Of Jewish converts we hear nothing, yet Paul addresses his epistle, “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers (i.e., the elders) and deacons” (Phil. 1:1).

Second, it is insubordinate to the apostolic demand for uniform practice in the churches. In 1 Corinthians 11–14 the Apostle Paul deals with problems of church order in the Corinthian assembly. “His expectation and demand is that there will be uniformity in practice throughout the churches.” [148] He writes, “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). Such ecclesiastical relativism seeks to evade the clear teaching in Scripture about the ordering of the church. At times it merges with the ecclesiastical pragmatism I have addressed above. “If it works, that’s enough!” Jim Elliot, the young and forthright missionary to Ecuador, wrote of this attitude,

Further, J. says “the [Plymouth Brethren] worship service is most satisfying to me as an individual.” What in all eternity has that got to do with it? Have her personal likes and dislikes any right to dictate method in the holy church of God.… J.’s letter was interesting. Her attitude toward the church of God is like the majority of Fundamentalists — “anything will do.” The pivot point hangs on whether or not God has revealed a universal pattern for the church in the New Testament. If He has not, then anything will do so long as it works. But I am convinced that nothing so dear to the heart of Christ as His Bride should be left without explicit instructions as to her corporate conduct. [149]

Third, it is demeaning to the important place of the local church in the plan of God. The church lies at the heart, not the periphery of God’s program. It is, says Paul, “The pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). God has designed the church to show very important truths to the world, and He has so designed it that those truths can only be shown by a certain form of church structure.

Finally, ecclesiastical relativism is inconsistent with the evangelical view of biblical authority. Evangelicals insist that the Word of God is sufficient for every area of faith (theology) and practice; sufficient, that is, in every area except one, viz., church government. In this area cultural variation is important, many evangelicals insist. This is puzzling because evangelicals normally insist that the Bible must be the judge of culture and not be conformed to it. They recognize that culture is often a Satanic means of sheltering people from God. They know that the New Testament means something closely akin to “culture” when it speaks of the κόσμος (kosmos, i.e., the “world”), the Satanic system opposed to God.

They reject cultural relativism when it says that biblical morality and doctrine are not to be applied to a specific people. They rightly reject the relativistic notions of anthropologists who oppose the preaching of the gospel to native peoples on the ground that it “Westernizes” them. They totally reject the moral relativism that would minimize or trivialize the evils of adultery, divorce, homosexuality, lying, idolatry, drunkenness, and other practices prohibited by Scripture. Yet they inconsistently deny the possibility of following the New Testament in its teaching on church order because our culture is different.

Such relativism is unknown to the apostles. Paul advises Timothy that he is writing so that “you may know how one ought (δεῒ, dei) to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). “There is a divine necessity about New Testament church order,” says Gary Inrig. “It is not optional, no matter what the culture, because of the local assembly’s relation to divine truth.” [150]

The Primacy of Scripture in the Church

The Centrality of the Word among the Activities of the Church

Paul’s expression “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) says a great deal about his understanding of the function of the local church. The context of the expression is his letter to Timothy in which he instructs him to confront the doctrinal error being perpetrated by some of the Ephesian elders. [151]

The word pillar (στῦλος, stylos) would have special significance to the Ephesians in that their city was the site of the Temple of Diana which had 127 marble pillars upon which announcements were regularly affixed. The local church was a pillar upon which the truth was to be held up that all might see it. By “truth” (ἀληθεία, alētheia) Paul means the full revelation of God in Christ as verse 16 makes clear. The truth is the orthodox Christian faith, i.e., the fundamental doctrines of the Bible as they center in Christ. The church is a household called to manifest the truth in its message and to conform to it in its conduct. [152] Paul adds that the church is the “support” or buttress (ἑδραίωμα, hedraiōma) of the truth. The church, the Apostle implies, exists to maintain the faith and protect it from all danger.

A survey of the New Testament reveals that the elders of the church are men who daily deal with biblical truth. They are warned to guard the flock against “wolves,” i.e., false teachers (Acts 20:17, 28–31; Titus 1:5–9), and they are instructed to be teachers of the Word of God (John 21:17; 1 Tim. 3:2; 4:13). The man is to be honored who works hard at preaching and teaching (1 Tim. 5:17–18). As James Orr (1844–1913), the well-known Scottish theologian, remarked, “If there is a religion in the world which exalts the office of teaching, it is safe to say that it is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [153]

The Centrality of Biblical Preaching/Teaching

In Luke’s brief description of the first meetings of the church (Acts 2:42), he says, “they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” Commenting on this text, biblical commentator John R. W. Stott writes, “The Holy Spirit opened a school in Jerusalem that day; its teachers were the apostles whom Jesus had appointed; and there were 3,000 pupils in the kindergarten!” [154] He rightly observes that from the outset the church rejected anti-intellectualism. There was never a hint that instruction was unnecessary.

The believers listened attentively because the apostles were a living link with the Savior. The Holy Spirit enabled them to remember infallibly what they had heard Jesus say (John 14:28; 15:26–27), and they were given authority to communicate divine revelation (cf. 1 Cor. 2:10; Gal. 1:11–12). It was their duty to lay the foundation of normative Christian teaching for the Christian church (Eph. 2:20). What they taught was the voice of God to the church (cf. 1 Pet. 1:25; 1 John 4:6; John 14:26; 1 Thess. 2:13). [155] Their teaching, as Acts 28:31 makes clear, concerned the Lord Jesus Christ — the facts of His life and teaching and the significance of His death and resurrection (Acts 2:22–36).

The living apostles no longer expound the truth [156] in the meetings of the church, but apostolic teaching still goes forth in every place where faithful men hand the truth on to those who can teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). Their teaching is found in the canon of the New Testament, and the faithful church is one which seeks to understand, proclaim, and conform to the unique, infallible teaching of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his lectures to the students of Westminster Theological Seminary, said, “The most urgent need in the Christian Church today is true preaching.… It is obviously the greatest need of the world also.” [157] John Stott added, “Preaching is indispensable to Christianity. Without preaching a necessary part of its authenticity has been lost. For Christianity is, in its very essence, a religion of the Word of God.” [158]

The Decline of Biblical Preaching/Teaching

Professor John R. de Witt of Reformed Theological Seminary says that today “most congregations are largely indifferent to preaching.” They “are satisfied with mediocrity in the pulpit, provided the [preacher] is inoffensive and does not trespass too much on their time.” [159] These low expectations are self-fulfilling, says Regent College professor, James Packer. Having become cool and blasé about preaching we expect little from them and “should not wonder that God deals with us according to our unbelief.” [160]

John Stott has concluded that preaching is a dying art. [161] Many reasons have been offered for its demise. Some have noted the mood of our age which is decidedly anti-authority. All elements of the old order (family, school, state, Bible, church) are being challenged. We should remember, however, that mankind has always been hostile to God and authority (cf. Rom. 8:7). We should also remember that Christianity is inherently dogmatic due to the doctrine of revelation. [162]

Others have pointed to the cybernetics (= mechanisms of communication) revolution. TV makes people physically lazy, intellectually uncritical, emotionally insensitive, psychologically confused, and morally disordered. [163] Because of TV “the power of speech to communicate significance has become suspect.” Calm and chatty intimacy is considered genuine, while strong feelings expressed in dynamic preaching look and sound artificial. [164]

Adding his reasons for the modern demise of preaching, J. I. Packer says that much of it is non-preaching. [165] They are either speeches delivered without opening the Bible, lectures aimed at informing the mind, or addresses expressing the preacher’s opinion. In short, they are often less than messages from God. Preaching, he notes, is teaching plus application (invitation, direction, summons), and the plus is often lacking in many church discourses today.

Second, he notes that topical preaching, [166] as opposed to expository preaching, [167] has become the general rule. Such sermons fall short because their biblical content is made to appear as the speaker’s own wisdom. The text is reduced to a peg upon which the speaker hangs his own opinions. “This destroys the very idea of Christian preaching, which excludes the thought of speaking for the Bible and insists that the Bible be allowed to speak for itself in and through the speaker’s words.” The true preacher must allow himself to become a mouthpiece for messages from the biblical text. [168]

Third, in some Christian groups today “a cult of spontaneity militates against preaching.” A holdover from the 1960s and 70s, this viewpoint prizes crudeness as a sign of sincerity. Folk-style songs, extempore prayer marked by earnest incoherence, Charismatic “prophecy,” and under-prepared and intellectually imprecise sermons are some of the manifestations of this attitude. [169]

Fourth, the fascination with liturgical forms by some evangelicals militates against preaching. It is striking that J. I. Packer, an Episcopalian, should make this observation. He is bothered that numerous Christians are flowing into liturgical churches because of the shallowness and mediocrity of the churches of their upbringing. The problem is that they are throwing the baby (preaching of the Bible) out with the bathwater (shallow worship services).

The Substitutes for Biblical Preaching/Teaching

John MacArthur, well-known pastor and seminary president, has argued that a new pragmatism in our time is undermining “the four priorities of the early church,” namely, “the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of the bread, and prayer” (Acts 2:42). [170] MacArthur is particularly concerned about a change in ministry philosophy in which entertainment is being used as a tool for church growth. [171] He cites similar concerns by the late A. W. Tozer who feared that frivolous diversions would eventually destroy people’s appetites for real worship and the preaching of the Word. [172] Such things are defended by an Arminian pragmatism (“Does it work?”) that denies the growth process found in Scripture:

“I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth” (1 Cor. 3:6–7). “The new pragmatism sees preaching as passé. [173] Plainly declared biblical truth is deemed too offensive and utterly ineffective. We’re now told we can get better results by first amusing people and thus wooing them into the fold.” [174]

Other substitutes for preaching have emerged in our time. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his famous Westminster Seminary lectures, noted the increased emphasis on “personal work” or “counseling.” [175] Others have bemoaned the psychologizing of the Christian message. [176] Lloyd-Jones, an astute observer of modern evangelicalism, asserts that as biblical preaching — preaching that is expositional, pastoral, doctrinal, and relevant — goes down, the need for counseling goes up. True preaching, applied by the Holy Spirit to individuals who are listening, has been the means in the past of dealing with many of the personal problems of people. As Harold John Ockenga observed long ago, biblical preaching will communicate the same ideas that one gives in counseling. “You might as well handle a thousand people as one or ten.” [177]

Other voices have stressed the need for an evangelical social activism to deal with the social conditions and political injustices of society. [178] It is not evangelism and Bible teaching designed to convert and nurture individual souls that is needed so much as programs that will bring about social transformation. [179] Key proponents [180] of this view argue that evangelicals need to return to their roots, i.e., the socially-concerned and active evangelicalism of the nineteenth century. [181] Lloyd-Jones has argued that such activism is at best secondary, [and] very often not even secondary. The primary task of the church is the preaching of the Word of God. [182]

Another substitute for preaching and teaching the Bible is the current concentration on liturgy that I mentioned earlier. The past two decades have seen a steady stream of evangelicals out of Bible teaching churches into the liturgical services of the Roman, Greek Orthodox and Anglican communions. Tired of the “religious individualism and kitsch” of their churches they have sought a more austere God-centered worship in the set liturgies of these older churches. J. I. Packer, himself an evangelical Anglican, is stunned by this movement. “It saddens me to observe that this liturgical interest, which has led them to leave churches that highlighted the ministry of the Word, seems to have elbowed all concern about preaching out of their minds.” [183]

The Importance of Biblical Preaching/Teaching

Dr. Donald Coggan says that this modern attitude to preaching is “a specious lie” perpetrated by “Our Father Below,” as C. S. Lewis called the devil. [184]

Preaching is important, says Packer, for three reasons: [185] First, it is God’s revealed way of making Himself and His work known to us. Many New Testament texts stress the need for preaching (Matt. 10:6–7; Mark 3:14; 13:10; Luke 24:45–49; Acts 5:42; 6:2–4; 10:42; Rom. 10:6–17; 1 Cor. 1:17–24; 9:16; Phil. 1:12–18; 2 Tim. 4:2–5; Tit. 1:3). Second, preaching communicates the force of the Bible as no other way of handling it does. Packer derives this argument from the nature of Scripture itself, which is, in and of itself, preaching. Many sections in the prophets, the Gospels, the Acts, and the epistles are sermons on paper. The rest of the Scriptures as well were written to edify.

Finally, preaching focuses the identity and clarifies the calling of the church as no other activity does. The church has an identity crisis today, says Packer. Is it a social club, like the Rotary? Is it a special interest group, like a political party, or is it, perhaps, an athletic center? No, the church is the people of God, and preaching keeps before the believers their calling to be an obedient, Word oriented, worship oriented, and witness oriented company of people.

The Rehabilitation of Biblical Preaching/Teaching

If we — I am writing primarily to those in Open Brethren assemblies — are to be Spirit-filled churches, the powerful preaching of apostles’ doctrine must be rehabilitated. [186] We must recognize that the primary task of the church is the proclamation of God’s Word (2 Tim. 4:2; cf. Acts 6:4; 1 Tim. 4:13; 6:2; 1 Cor. 1:17, 23; 2 Cor. 4:5). [187] In our assemblies we must allow/encourage men to give themselves to preaching. [188] Recognizing the biblical principle of difference in spiritual gifts — not everyone is a preacher/teacher, not even every elder — we must free the gifted men from other responsibilities in order that they might give themselves to this task. [189]

Furthermore, we must commit ourselves to the complete authority of the Word — in our church life, in our business life, and in our family life. Also, we must preach the great doctrines of the Bible, and we must preach them from the texts in which they are found. In addition, as preachers we must be certain of our relationship to Christ and maintain a strong Christian life. Finally, we must be aware that we are role models for younger men, and we must set for them a good example in the earnest discipline we bring to the preaching task.

The Centrality of the Word in the Message of the Church

John Stott wrote, “It is the contention of evangelicals that they are plain Bible Christians, and that in order to be a biblical Christian it is necessary to be an evangelical Christian.” [190] This is a bold assertion because Stott is not saying that evangelicals are an interesting and distinctive group within the Christian spectrum; he is saying that evangelicalism is authentic, biblical Christianity. [191]

The word evangelical comes from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion), meaning “gospel” or “good news.” Evangelicals are those people whose beliefs and practice are shaped by what the Apostle calls “the truth of the gospel” of Jesus Christ (Gal. 2:5, 14).They are “cross-centered people, for the heart of the gospel is the declaration of Christ’s atoning death and victorious resurrection with its summons to faith and a life of discipleship.” [192] Because they are Bible people, evangelicals [193] give the Scriptures the place of primacy in their life, practice, and theology. The fundamental perspectives of the Bible’s teaching must be central in what is regularly proclaimed from the pulpit.

The Authority of Scripture: A Distinctive View of Revelation and Theology [194]

At least six biblical truths give evangelical theology its basic shape. The most basic of these is its view of the Bible. Evangelicals follow their Lord who explained Himself and His work in terms of Scriptural teaching (Luke 24:27). They affirm with the apostles (2 Tim. 3:14–17; 2 Pet. 1:21) that the Scriptures come from the mouth of God and are His full and sufficient provision that they might be thoroughly equipped to live the Christian life.

The Seriousness of Sin: A Distinctive View of Human Nature

In defining the predicament of man evangelicals must resist the modern approach of using the language of psychotherapy. They must instead explain the problems of people by the categories which the Bible supplies. The seriousness of the human predicament is seen in the death of Jesus. That death is “a barbaric overreaction on God’s part” if human beings are not in very serious danger.

The greatest of dangers facing people is a long-standing one, originating with the decision of Adam and Eve to disobey God (Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12). That self-centered and self-seeking decision has involved the entire human race in their corruption and guilt. Every human being has a bias towards sin (Rom. 3:23), is alienated from God (Isa. 59:1–2; Col. 1:21), and is under the threat of God’s terrifying judgment (Heb. 9:27; 10:31). The most basic need of men and women is not justice for the oppressed, international peace, or environmental awareness, as important as these may be. The most basic need, according to Scripture, is for forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God.

The Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ: A Distinctive View of Salvation

Beginning with Genesis 3:15 and gradually unfolding through the Scriptures is the promise of a full, final, and effective solution to the problem of sin. That solution is offered by the Suffering Servant of the Lord who takes upon Himself “the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). Jesus Christ is the promised “lamb of God” (John 1:29) who gives His life a “ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). The Bible teaches that He died in our place and bore the curse of God for us (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:2). This is God’s answer to the human dilemma. If Scripture is to have a place of primacy in the church the penal substitutionary death of Christ as a satisfaction of God’s righteous demands must not be reduced to just one of many “theories” of atonement. It must be proclaimed as the basic biblical understanding without which other perspectives are devoid of any real meaning. [195]

Justification by Faith Alone: A Distinctive View of Christian Response

The Judaism of Jesus’ time was a grotesque mutation of the religion given to Moses. [196] It had changed the religion of promise into a performance-oriented attempt to relate to God on the basis of one’s own self-righteousness. While the Pharisees boasted in their own righteousness (Luke 18:14) Paul taught that God “justifies the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5). It is those who put their faith in Jesus who are made right with God (Rom. 4:1–5). They are acquitted in God’s courtroom and have a new standing with Him (Rom. 8:1–4). If Scripture has primacy then this important doctrine will be proclaimed. It safeguards the initiative of God in salvation and undermines all human boasting.

The Necessity of the New Birth: A Distinctive View of Grace and the Spirit

Human beings, lost in their sins, are called to respond to God’s marvelous provision. Such a response is impossible for those who are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), deaf (1 Cor. 2:14), and blind (2 Cor. 4:3–4). They are unable to believe without the miraculous intervention of God. They need to be born again (John 3:3, 5). God in His grace provides both the objective and subjective requirements for salvation. He has provided the atonement by Christ, and He brings us to new birth by His Spirit. As Thompson has noted, it is wrong to say that evangelicals have ignored the work of the Spirit. They have always maintained His importance in creation, redemption, and the life of the church and Christian. They have always asserted His vital role in the greatest miracle of all: bringing a person from death to life. What they have refused to do is to trivialize His work and to sever His work from the Scriptures, the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17).

The Imminent Personal Return of Jesus to Judge: A Distinctive View of Universal History

The urgency of the gospel call is anchored in the future reality of judgment, a reality guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 17:31). The New Testament is full of warnings about the imminency and unexpectedness of the return of Jesus to the earth (John 14:1–3; Rom. 8:19, 23, 25; 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:20; 4:5; 1 Thess. 1:9–10; 4:13–18; Tit. 2:12-13l James 5:7–8; Jude 21; Rev. 22:20–21). Christians are described as those who have “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven” (1 Thess. 1:9–10).

Although evangelicals differ on certain chronological matters with regard to our Lord’s coming, we also agree that the only hope of rescue lies in Jesus Christ Himself. It is no surprise, says Thompson, that evangelism is (or should be!) at the forefront of evangelical practice. This springs from our understanding of Scripture, of the future, of the human predicament, of the work of Christ and the necessity of faith and new birth by the Spirit.

Summary

It is a shift from these basic biblical truths that characterizes a shift from evangelicalism. Such a shift does not usually come at first from a negative attack. Rather it usually comes from a modification by addition. That is why evangelical theology has often been summarized by the Reformation slogans: “Scripture alone,” “Christ alone,” “Grace alone,” and “Faith alone.” These slogans guard against modification by addition.

J. I. Packer wrote, “You cannot add to evangelical theology without subtracting from it. By augmenting it, you cannot enrich it; you can only impoverish it. Thus, for example, if you add to it a doctrine of human priestly mediation you take away the truth of the perfect adequacy of our Lord’s priestly mediation. If you add to it a doctrine of human merit, in whatever form, you take away the truth of the merits of Christ.… The principle applies at point after point. What is more than evangelical is less than evangelical. Evangelical theology, by its very nature, cannot be supplemented; it can only be denied.” [197]

As Mark Thompson put it, the crucial questions are ones of sufficiency. Is the Bible sufficient as the saving revelation of God. Evangelicals say “yes” to this question; non-evangelicals have supplemented the Bible with human reason, church pronouncements, private visions, dreams, and prophetic statements. Is Jesus’ death sufficient to deal with our sins and secure our relationship with God? Evangelicals answer “yes” again; non-evangelicals argue that the ministrations and rituals of the church play a role in this. Is faith sufficient as the appropriate response to the offer of forgiveness? Evangelicals answer in the affirmative; non-evangelicals answer in the negative and impose works, ceremonies, and second experiences. [198]

Conclusion

It was Gisbert Voetius (1589–1676), a Dutch Reformed theologian, who coined the expression semper reformanda, “always being reformed.” He believed, no doubt, that in ongoing reformation lay the secret for the healing of the church. [199] Some may ask, “Do we in the Brethren assemblies really need reforming?” I would answer yes for three reasons: First, there is the question of numbers. Most observers admit that the assemblies are in decline. Second, to reform is true to our history as Brethren. The Brethren movement began as a kind of reform movement. Let us remind ourselves of the boldness of Groves, Darby, Müller, Craik, Newton and others who were not afraid to confront the unbiblical traditions of their churches and to seek a better way. To oppose calls for renewal is to show that were we alive in 1828 we would have vigorously opposed the heroes that we so deeply venerate today. Third, to reform is biblical. The watchful Christ calls upon the Ephesian church to “remember…from where you have fallen, and repent.” (Rev. 2:5). Likewise he calls upon Pergamum to repent or He will “make war” with the rebels in her midst (Rev. 2:16). The Thyatirans are threatened with sickness and destruction because of their lack of repentance and renewal (Rev. 2:22–23). Sardis, too, is called upon to “remember” and “repent” (Rev. 3:3). The church at Laodicea is also challenged to turn to the Lord for the spiritual riches and spiritual clothing she needs (Rev. 3:18–20).

What is the principle of reformation and renewal? It is the principle of the Reformation of the 16th century and the principle of the early Brethren, viz., sola scriptura, the Scripture alone. Outside of the Bible there is in this world no true source of renewal.

I would therefore suggest that what is needed first of all is the re-establishment of the authority of the Bible in our churches. [200] We need to commit ourselves to the plan of the Word of God in the structure of our churches. Where Scripture speaks we must listen, and where Scripture is silent we should be silent. The Scriptures, not tradition or cultural preferences, must be the norm by which renewal must be measured. And we need to encourage the disciplined reading of the Bible among the people and the careful exposition of the Bible by our teachers. We need to come to the place where the Word of God gains “complete ascendancy” over us.

Notes

1. This paper was originally prepared for delivery at “Understanding the Church: A Colloquium for Serious Christians” in St. Louis, Missouri on May 15-17, 1997. The colloquium was sponsored by Grace Bible Chapel.
2. Dave MacLeod is a faculty member at Emmaus Bible College and the Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.
3. For many years Mrs. Gillespie, still alive (as I write) at ninety-four years of age, has been in happy fellowship at Christ Congregation, an assembly of Brethren in Dallas. She repeated the above story to me over the phone on May 9, 1989. She also related another story, told to her by her father. A young convert in India was given a copy of Thomas’ commentary on Genesis. He enjoyed it greatly and told a friend how much he had profited from reading it. The friend told him that Griffith Thomas was a clergyman in the Church of England. “I’m surprised,” said the young man. “He knows his Bible so well I thought he must be a member of the Brethren.” Griffith Thomas was later told of this incident, and he said that this was one of the greatest compliments he had ever received.
4. Harold H. Rowdon, Who Are the Brethren and Does It Matter? (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), 31–33.
5. J. N. Darby, “Disendowment—Disestablishment: A Word to the Protestants of Ireland, in a Letter to the Ven. Archdeacon Stopford” (dated Feb. 20, 1869), in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, 34 vols., ed. William Kelly (reprint ed., Oak Park, IL: Bible Truth Publishers, 1972), 20: 288. Cf. William Blair Neatby, A History of the Plymouth Brethren (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902), 16. Neatby says, “600–800 a week,” while Darby says “many hundreds.”
6. F. Roy Coad, History of the Brethren Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 67.
7. Harold H. Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren, 1825–1850 (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1967), 123, 128.
8. John Nelson Darby, “Letter to Prof. Tholuck, dated c. 1855,” in Letters of J. N. D., 3 vols., ed. William Kelly (reprint ed., Oak Park, IL: Bible Truth Publishers, 1971), 3:297–98.
9. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 1: 241.
10. J. N. Darby, “Analysis of Dr. Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua,” in Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, 18: 146.
11. Cf. the helpful summaries in William MacDonald, “Christ Loved the Church” (Oak Park: Emmaus Bible School, 1956), 9–13 and passim.
12. The first four items in my list of essentials are the traditional attributes of the church found in the Nicene Creed (as enlarged in A.D. 381), “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” Evangelicals generally accept the four attributes as being biblical. They interpret them differently, of course, from Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. Cf. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York: Harper, 1877), 1: 28.
13. Emil Brunner, Dogmatics, 3 vols., vol. 3: The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation, trans. David Cairns (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 67.
14. In the traditional list of the attributes of the church the word catholic appears. That word is perfectly valid if one means the universality of the church. Unfortunately, it is a term that has been abused in the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman communions. There it is used in a sectarian sense to exclude all who are not members of those communions.
15. Paul S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 268–69 and passim.
16. Alfred Kuen, I Will Build My Church, trans. Ruby Lindblad (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 195–98.
17. Moralism and a radical shift from the New Testament doctrine of saving grace are already evident in the apostolic Fathers of the second century. Cf. Thomas F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 133–41, and passim; Oscar Cullmann, “The Tradition,” in The Early Church, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), 96.
18. This is not to deny that creeds and confessions had valid origins, viz., in the church’s need to counter heresies.
19. Cf. Brunner, Dogmatics, 3: 52, 54, 60, 67, 125. At infant baptism salvation is imparted without making any demands on a person. Henceforth such a person, first a child and then an adult, is asked to live a life he/she can never live, never having been truly born again (Kuen, I Will Build My Church, 310).
20. As Anglican scholar, Melvin Tinker, notes, there is a failure in this ecclesiasticism to distinguish a.d. from b.c., i.e., the new covenant from the old. Failing to see that the Old Testament law was abrogated, the institutional church has lifted practices and models straight from the old covenant and applied them to the church. Thus we have the localization of God in hallowed buildings and the ministry of priestcraft with robes to match. Cf. “Towards an Evangelical View of the Church,” in The Anglican Evangelical Crisis, ed. M. Tinker (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1995), 101.
21. The church now becomes defined as the visible organization, viz., the Roman Catholic Church. Cf. Brunner, Dogmatics, 3: 28–29, 30, 58–60. “The Ekklesia of the New Testament is not an institution, but…rather…a world-embracing brotherhood” (p. 35).
22. The purpose clause (ἵ́να) at the end of v. 21 indicates that while the unity envisaged is not institutional, it is meant to be observable. Cf. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 568.
23. Cf. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Outline Studies in Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 218–25.
24. William J. McRae, The Principles of the New Testament Church (Dallas: Believers Chapel, 1974), 5.
25. The modern ecumenical movement sponsored by the World Council of Churches is based on the false premise that denominations are churches. The ecumenism that it promotes is therefore external and institutional. There is a true internal ecumenism, i.e., the unity “in Christ” shared by all true believers. It is a unity of life and a unity in truth. Three important points should be borne in mind: (1) The New Testament never sees “unity” as an end in itself, i.e., as a goal to be achieved in spite of doctrinal error. (2) Not all so-called disunity is wrong. The apostles Paul and John recognize no ground for unity with those who teach doctrinal error [Gal. 1:8; 1 John 2:18–19; 4:1–3] or practice moral evil [1 Cor. 5:5]. (3) Two forms of disunity are recognized in the New Testament, one of which is unacceptable [lack of love, 1 Cor. 1:13], and one of which is necessary [lack of truth]. English reformer, John Jewell (1522–77), reminded his readers that it is possible to be united in error. “There was the greatest consent that might be amongst them that worshipped the golden calf and among them who with one voice jointly cried, ‘Crucify Him!’” Another English reformer, Hugh Latimer (1485–1555), remarked, “We ought never to regard unity so much that we would or should forsake God’s Word for her sake.” Cf. Tinker, “The Anglican Evangelical Crisis,” 108–9.
26. Said Luther, “I pray you, leave my name alone, and do not call yourselves Lutherans, but Christians. Who is Luther? My doctrine is not mine. I have not been crucified for any one. St. Paul would not that any one should call themselves of Paul, nor of Peter, but of Christ. How, then, does it befit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes, to give my name to the children of Christ? Cease, my dear friends, to cling to those party names and distinctions,—away with them all! and let us call ourselves only Christians, after Him from whom our doctrine comes.” Quoted by Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (2d ed., New York: Scribner’s, 1910; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 7: 473.
27. In the Gospel Halls of Nova Scotia I never heard any name for Christians except those found in the Bible. When I was converted I attended a conference in New England, only to be asked by one of the young people if I was a “Plym.” When another friend saw my confusion he said, “You know, he’s asking whether you’re a P. B.” Several years later a seminary classmate approached Dr. Lewis Johnson and Prof. Zane Hodges to ask them the Plymouth Brethren view of something or another—rumor had it that Johnson and Hodges were Brethren. Mr. Hodges responded, “We’re not Plymouth Brethren.” The student wanted to know why he was so touchy about the name “Plymouth Brethren.” After all, “I know a number of students who do not mind being called ‘Plymouth Brethren.’” “Well,” said Hodges, “if they call themselves ‘Plymouth Brethren,’ they can’t be Plymouth Brethren!” As soon as we develop a “them-us” attitude toward other believers we have denied the oneness of the body. Mr. William Armerding of Vancouver told me of a Christian camp ground on the West coast that rented its facilities to various groups. The Brethren had held a conference there for years, but due to declining numbers the camp notified them that next year they would have to share the facility with a group of evangelical Methodists. One of the Brethren representatives voiced his concern to some friends. “I don’t mind the other group being there, but I’m wondering if there’ll be enough room for ‘the Lord’s people.’” This highlights a problem for anyone who wants to avoid the sin of sectarianism. What does a definable group of churches call itself without compromising its opposition to denominationalism and sectarianism? Have I compromised myself by using the label, “Open Brethren?” The Open Brethren have tried (negatively) to avoid sectarianism and (positively) to affirm the oneness of the body of Christ by accepting all believers to the Lord’s Table, supporting worthwhile evangelical efforts outside their assemblies (Inter Varsity, Billy Graham campaigns, etc.), and by inviting gifted men from other groups to their platforms. But are we a “denomination?” We do not want to be, but the very existence of a definable group of churches (“the assemblies”) with shared publications (Uplook, Counsel, Believer’s Magazine, Mission, The Emmaus Journal, etc.), agencies (CMML, Emmaus Bible College, Stewards Foundation, Stewards Ministries), and spokesmen, suggests something like a denomination. I would make three observations: (1) The only way to avoid being part of a denomination in this sinful age is to adopt absolute independency, which assembly people would not want to do. (2) We must, nevertheless, vigorously and ruthlessly oppose every vestige of sectarianism in our persons and churches. (3) We must recognize that the division in the church is a deep-rooted sin that will exist (even in the assemblies) until our blessed Lord delivers us from this sin cursed earth.
28. The imbalance of gifts is due to the fact that denominations tend to attract people of similar interests and backgrounds. Some attract intellectuals who often favor teaching; others entrepreneurial types who are often evangelistic; others large-hearted generous types who want to minister to the needy; and others artistic types who are often helpful in music.
29. Every denomination has Christians who leave at one time or another hungering for something more meaningful. Most denominations have an ethos or style that leaves something out, and people leave looking for that “something.”
30. For a summary of the dangers of denominationalism, cf. John M. Frame, Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the Body of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 45–56.
31. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 149. Cf. TDNT, s.v. “ἅγιος,ς by O. Procksch, 1: 115.
32. In context the “gold, silver, precious stones,” extensively used for adorning ancient temples, were appropriate symbols for pure doctrine. “Wood, hay, stubble” symbolize the false doctrine (“wisdom,” 1 Cor. 2:6). The passage, contrary to popular opinion, does not have to do with the individual’s personal Christian life. Cf. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 136, n. 12.
33. The procedure for discipline involved four steps: (1) private rebuke [Matt. 18:15], (2) plural rebuke [Matt. 18:16], (3) public rebuke [Matt. 18:17a], and (4) official exclusion from the fellowship of the Lord’s Table [Matt. 18:17b; 1 Cor. 5:17; 1 Tim. 1:19–20; Tit. 3:10]. Cf. McRae, The Principles of the New Testament Church, 26.
34. Examples of moral (1 Cor. 5) and doctrinal (Tit. 3:10) evil can be found in the apostolic period itself.
35. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 1: 22, n. 2.
36. Brunner, Dogmatics, 3: 125–26.
37. I am personally aware of a large evangelical church that openly proclaimed its strict adherence to “Lordship salvation.” When its elders were advised of a long-term adulterous affair involving two of their members and were asked if they planned discipline, they responded, “That would be too unloving!”
38. TDNT, s.v. “ἐκκλησία,” by K. L. Schmidt, 3: 512; cf. Brunner, Dogmatics, 3: 40, 84.
39. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 368. In the interests of feminist ideology the word κεφαλή has been softened by many expositors to mean “source” or “origin” (cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT [rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984], 68). Cf. the definitive article by Wayne Grudem, “Does κεφαλή mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” TrinJ 6 (Spring 1985): 38-59; Idem., “The Meaning of Kephaleµ (‘Head’): A Response to Recent Studies,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 425–68.
40. Significantly both the universal church (Eph. 1: 23) and the local church (1 Cor. 12:27) are described as the body of Christ.
41. Oxford scholar, George B. Caird, writes, “The twofold ministry of elder and deacon continued unchanged throughout the first century.” Cf. G. B. Caird, The Apostolic Age (London:Duckworth, 1955), 151.
42. The appearance of the monarchical bishop can be traced back as early as Ignatius (c. a.d. 35–107). “See that you all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father…. Let that be considered a valid eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints” (To the Smyrnaeans 8.1 in The Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols. trans. Kirsopp Lake, LCL [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929], 1: 260–61). Also:“Give heed to the bishop, that God may also give heed to you” (To Polycarp 6.1 [1:272–73]). Caird notes that in the latter half of the first century three events occurred that altered the character of the church:(1) the final break between Christianity and Judaism, (2) the beginning of persecution by Rome, and (3) the death of many who had been principal leaders in the early church. The death of the apostles, the crumbling of the old covenant, outbreaks of persecution, and the prevalence of heresy and false prophecy led to the rise of the monarchical bishop. Caird suggests that the vigor with which Ignatius states his case for the bishop’s role implies that this new development had been “vigorously opposed” by many in the churches. In any case, the rise of the monarchical bishop is best understood as the expedient by which the early church asserted its right to condemn divergent views in the absence of the apostles. Cf. Caird, The Apostolic Age, 141–55 (esp. pp. 141, 151-52).
43. This is not to deny that the evangelical church has been blessed by many godly pastors. It is only to assert that Scripture teaches that these men should have been (and should be) part of a team of elders, rather than in a position of solitary authority. An incident in a Brethren assembly might illustrate a problem in our own thinking. Years ago I was scheduled to preach at a local assembly in Chicago. I arrived in time for the early adult Bible class. The subject was “New Testament Church Principles,” a perennial favorite among the Brethren. The moderator started by asking the class, “How do we in the assemblies differ from other Christian groups?” The first person to respond said, “We don’t have a pastor.” How sad, I thought, to be in a church without even one pastor. How much happier that assembly that can say, “We have several pastor-elders who watch over this flock.”
44. Cf. Klaus Runia, “The God-Given Ministry Between Spirit and Situation,” in God Who is Rich in Mercy, eds. Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson (Homebush West, NSW, Australia: Lancer Books, 1986), 267.
45. Cf. the discussion in Robert Banks, “From Fellowship to Organisation: A Study in the Early History of the Concept of the Church,” RTR 30 (September 1971): 79-89.
46. Well-known is George Müller’s comment that the church can function “without any rules” (Harold H. Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren, 1825–1850 [London: Pickering & Inglis, 1967], 122). One needs to be careful, however, not to miss the fact that in the context of freedom the Apostle does impose some order (1 Cor. 14:26–33). He sees no value in chaos. All Christian groups have some form to their meetings—if they didn’t they wouldn’t know where and when to meet! Most would agree that there has to be some uniformity in order for there to be worship. Novelty turns the attention of the worshiper away from God to the novel activity. C. S. Lewis, an Anglican, had these wise words, “As long as you notice, and have to count the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don’t notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God.” Cf. Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1963), 4.
47. C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (3d ed., San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982), 272–73. I quote Moule although I am a cessationist, i.e., someone who believes that some gifts of the early church have passed off the scene, their foundational function having ended.
48. Cf. Banks, “From Fellowship to Organisation,” 85–88.
49. Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8.1, in The Apostolic Fathers, 1: 260–61.
50. W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles (rev. ed., London: Church Book Room Press, 1956), 316. Idem., “Is the New Testament Minister a Priest?” BS 136 (January 1979): 65-73.
51. Robert Banks, “Fulfilling the Promise of the Priesthood of All Believers,” CBRF Journal 129 (December 1992): 25.
52. Eduard Schweizer, “The Service of Worship,” in Neotestamentica: German and English Essays 1951–1963 (Stuttgart: Zwingli Verlag, 1963): 334-36. Cf. Banks, “From Fellowship to Organisation,” 82, n. 9.
53. The word ordinance is derived from the Latin ordo, meaning “a row,” then “an order, arrangement.”
54. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1907), 930. This definition excludes five of the seven sacraments (viz., ordination, confirmation, matrimony, extreme unction, penance, baptism, and the eucharist) of the Roman Catholic Church. It also excludes, in spite of the adamant assertions of a brother on the East coast, the view that the woman’s head covering in meetings of the church is a sacrament! One should not try to protect what one believes is a biblical practice by unbiblical claims for that practice.
55. The visible act of submersion spoke of the believer’s dying and rising with Christ. The visible act was regarded as one with the inner event, i.e., Spirit baptism, that joined the believer to the body of Christ. Cf. Brunner, Dogmatics, 3: 53.
56. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The First Passover,” BBB (Sept. 27, 1981): 1.
57. The word sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, which was applied to anything sacred or consecrated. In ecclesiastical usage it meant an oath or solemn pledge. The connection of the term with the rites of baptism and the Lord’s Supper lies in the use of sacramentum in the Vulgate to translate the Greek μυστήριον (mystērion), or “mystery (cf. Eph. 5:32; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 1:20). Because of the mysterious element of the term and the almost magical power (imparting of regeneration and turning the elements into the body and blood of Christ) associated with the sacraments in Catholic theology, many evangelicals prefer the term ordinance. Cf. Robert Saucy, The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody, 1972), 191.
58. Brunner, Dogmatics, 3:54.
59. Brunner, Dogmatics, 3:60–66. Caird (The Apostolic Age, 154) writes, “The records of the apostolic age are silent on three other points of church order also. There is no evidence from our period that the administration of the sacraments was the monopoly of any ministerial office, that ordination involved the laying on of apostolic hands, or that the ministry was ever regarded as a priesthood.”
60. Murray J. Harris, “Christian Stewardship,” Interest (February 1979): 4-5.
61. “Ministers are underpaid because we are not doing our duty to finance the work of God.… We need to understand that it is not our job to enforce other people’s voluntary sacrifice. I am not called to enforce your charity. I am responsible to God for the stewardship of my own money.” Cf. R. C. Sproul, “Pastors and Paychecks: Ticket for Low Morale,” Eternity (May, 1988): 56.
62. There is an oft-repeated anecdote about a visit Thomas Aquinas (the “angelic doctor,” a.d. 1225–74) paid to the pope, Innocent IV (d. 1254). He found the pontiff watching as money was being counted. The pope smiled and said, “Well, Thomas, the church can no longer say, “Silver and gold have I none.” “No, your holiness, she can’t,” said the great theologian, “and neither can she say, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk’” (Acts 3:6).
63. Robert L. Saucy, “Authority in the Church,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 219.
64. Cf. W. D. Davies, “A Normative Pattern of Church Life in the New Testament?” in Christian Origins and Judaism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 199–229.
65. Cf. Pierre Batiffol, Primitive Catholicism, trans. H. L. Brianceau (New York: Longmans, Green, 1911), vi-vii and passim.
66. Cf. Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (rev. ed., New York: Penguin, 1983), 21–22, 35–36, 252–57 and passim.
67. Cf. the various essays in Kenneth E. Kirk, ed., The Apostolic Ministry (reprint ed., London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1957). Kirk (p. 8) defends the theory of doctrinal development in which later practices were present in apostolic times in seed form. Christ endowed His people with two gifts, viz., the means of grace (the word and sacraments) and the ministry of grace (the apostles and their fellow-laborers). Both (means and ministry) were in a state of fluidity for many years. It took some time before the Word was crystallized into the canon, and it took some time before the term “bishop” was reserved for the distinct office of “Essential Ministry,” i.e., those men in apostolic succession. Evangelical Anglicans reject a Catholic view of apostolic succession, and they are less inclined to insist that episcopacy is found in any form in the New Testament, but they do see it as a legitimate development. Cf. Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, ed., P. E. Hughes (1892; new ed., London: James Clarke, 1960), 400–402.
68. The Open Brethren tended to be restorationists, but the Exclusives felt this was an impossible ideal because of the ruin of the church. They opted for a primitive piety, rather than a primitive church order. Cf. James Patrick Callahan, “Primitivist Piety: The Ecclesiology of the Early Plymouth Brethren,” Ph. D. dissertation: Marquette University, 1994.
69. Cf. G. H. Lang, Departure: A Warning and an Appeal (2d ed., London: C. J. Thynne and Jarvis, 1926), 48.
70. Cf. Coad, History of the Brethren Movement, 75, 154–55 and passim; Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren, 125–26 and passim. Less than twenty years after Müller’s death his own assembly had abandoned biblical eldership for Darby’s views (Coad, p. 212).
71. Ross Howlett McLaren, “The Triple Tradition: The Origins and Development of the Open Brethren in North America,” EMJ 4 (Winter 1995): 193-208.
72. Cf. J. N. Darby, “Reply to Two Fresh Letters from Count De Gasparin,” in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, ed. William Kelly (reprint ed., Sunbury: Believers Bookshelf, n.d.), 4: 368. It is true that the Apostles and their delegates have departed. What is not true is Darby’s assumption that only apostles can appoint elders. It is very important, especially for loyal followers of a revered figure like J. N. Darby, to carefully distinguish what the Bible says from what Mr. Darby infers that it means. The Bible just does not say that only apostles and their delegates may appoint elders. Furthermore, the timing of Paul’s instructions concerning the qualifications and appointment of elders suggests that another, quite different, interpretation of the facts is the correct one. That fact that the apostle’s written instructions appear in Timothy and Titus, written toward the end of his career, suggests that he was arranging for the perpetuation of the office (not its demise) after his departure. A local assembly can still give heed to the “apostles’ teaching” on these matters, even though the apostles themselves have left the scene (cf. Acts 2:42). Paul’s comments in Acts 20:28 suggest that, in the final analysis, eldership is not an office or authority which can be conferred by man. It is the Holy Spirit who appoints elders. By means of the qualifications spelled out by Paul in 1 Timothy and Titus godly men are enabled to recognize those whom the Spirit has separated to the work. In short, it is not the function of the church to confer authority on men but to recognize the authority of those whom the Holy Spirit has appointed. Additionally, it might be inferred, although Scripture does not explicitly say so, that the elders of an established assembly, as the official overseers of the church, would have the authority (implied in their office) to develop and appoint others as elders. However, the emphasis of the New Testament is not upon the authority of those who appoint elders, but upon the recognition of the authority the Spirit has given to some as elders.
73. Cf. R. A. Huebner, The Ruin of the Church, Eldership, and Ministry of the Word by Gift (Morganville: Present Truth Publishers, n.d.), 33–35. The New Testament certainly cites examples of failure in the apostolic churches, and it warns of the dangers of apostasy both in the present and in the end-time. The history of Christendom furnishes numerous examples of the scarlet sins of the visible church. Nevertheless, it is erroneous to argue, as does Darby, that the church is completely in ruins. In fact, the many revivals and renewal movements of church history (including the Protestant reformation and the Brethren movement itself) show that the Holy Spirit has sovereignly pulled many in the church “back to the Bible” and apostolic practice on numerous occasions. Darby points to the loss of the doctrine of justification by faith in the Fathers (“Miracles and Infidelity,” in Collected Writings, 32:187) as but one illustration of the church’s ruin. In the providence of God, however, that great doctrine was recovered by Martin Luther. We might also cite the doctrine of biblical eldership as a truth lost in the clerisy of the Middle Ages. Yet this doctrine was recovered by George Müller and others in the nineteenth century. In spite of the pervasive apostasy and unbelief in our day, faithful Christians can still gather together and organize themselves on the basis of apostolic instruction and example as provided by the New Testament Scriptures.
74. W. D. Davies cites lexicographical, theological, sociological, and historical studies. He also mentions the baneful influence of the Enlightenment in substituting political and environmental factors for exegetical and theological explanations for the church’s organization. Cf. “A Normative Pattern of Church Life in the New Testament?” 200, 206–7.
75. J. B. Lightfoot, “The Christian Ministry,” in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (12th ed., London: Macmillan, 1913), 193, 196. The first edition of this important work was published in 1868. He writes, “The episcopate was formed not out of the apostolic order by localization but out of the presbyterial by elevation.”
76. Fenton John Anthony Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (1897; reprint ed., London: Macmillan, 1914), 230.
77.  Edwin Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, The Bampton Lectures for 1880 (2d ed., London: Rivingtons, 1882), 56–58, 83–87 and passim. Elders are based on the system of government by heads of families, or the seniors of a tribe; bishops follow the model of contemporary associations that were governed by a president, etc.
78. Rudolf Sohm, Outlines of Church History, trans. May Sinclair (trans. of 8th German ed. of 1893, London: Macmillan, 1913), 32–39.
79. Sohm, Outlines of Church History, 35. He wrote, “The natural man is a born Catholic.” Cf. similar comments in Brunner, Dogmatics, 3: 19–84.
80. Cf. Adolf Harnack, The Constitution and Law of the Church, trans. F. L. Pogson (New York: Putnam’s, 1910), 175–258.
81. Harnack, The Constitution and Law of the Church, 190.
82. Harnack’s views were first aired in his edition of the Didache (1884). The Didache or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” (early 2d cent.?) purports to be the instruction given to the nations in obedience to Jesus’ commission in Matt. 28:18–20. It was first discovered in the nineteenth century and is a manual of church instruction. Cf. Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols., LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912), 1: 305–7.
83. Cf. Davies, “A Normative Pattern of Church Life in the New Testament?” 203–4; Batiffol, Primitive Catholicism, xx-xxi; J. A. Robinson, “The Christian Ministry in the Apostolic and Sub-Apostolic Periods,” in Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry, ed. H. B. Swete (London: Macmillan, 1918), 60–68.
84. Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Primitive Church Studied with Special Reference to the Origins of the Christian Ministry, The Hewett Lectures for 1928 (London: Macmillan, 1930), ix. The church in Jerusalem was governed by elders, with James as a kind of bishop (pp. 72-74). In Corinth preeminence in the church depended on the personal possession of some spiritual gift and government was something like modern Congregationalism (pp. 77-80). In response to the Corinthian situation Paul began to lay greater stress upon the offices of the church (cf. Phil. 1:1), and in 2 and 3 John there has clearly emerged a mono-episcopacy in the person of John (“elder” in the singular, cf. pp. 83-89).
85. Davies, “A Normative Pattern of Church Life in the New Testament?” 212. Cf. C. H. Dodd, “The Church in the New Testament,” in Essays Congregational and Catholic, ed. Albert Peel (London: Congregational Union of England and Wales, 1931), 3; T. W. Manson, The Church’s Ministry (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1948), 60, 65; George Johnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943), 65–66, 95–96; Davies, “A Normative Pattern of Church Life in the New Testament?” 217; Myles M. Bourke, “Reflections on Church Order in the New Testament,” CBQ 30 (1968): 493; Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 3: 1084. Dodd asserted that Streeter’s conclusions could not be shaken, and Manson said the New Testament era was marked by “a good deal of fluidity” in church organization and that “it is idle to look for any hard and fast system.”
86. Michael Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church (2d ed., London: Longmans Green, 1956; reprint ed., Cambridge, MA: Cowley, 1990), 68.
87. Edward Schweizer, Church Order in the new Testament, trans. Frank Clarke (London: SCM, 1961), 13. Cf. Walter Brueggemann, “Rethinking Church Models Through Scripture,” Theology Today 48 (July 1991), 128–38. Brueggemann writes, “There is no one single or normative model of church life. It is dangerous and distorting for the church to opt for an absolutist model that it insists upon in every circumstance” (p. 129).
88. Ernst Käsemann, “Ministry and Community in the New Testament,” in Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964), 86. He wrote, “The Pauline community had had no presbytery during the Apostle’s lifetime.”
89. Hans Küng, The Church, trans. Ray and Rosaleen Ockenden (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967), 408–10 and passim.
90. The case for biblical eldership is far more extensive than this. See below, my discussion, “The Biblical View Defended,” pp. 69-80.
91. Küng, The Church, 402; Käsemann, “Ministry and Community in the New Testament,” 86; Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, 99.
92. Küng, The Church, 405; Käsemann, “Ministry and Community in the New Testament,” 89; Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, 70–71.
93. Küng, The Church, 400; Käsemann, “Ministry and Community in the New Testament,” 89; Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, 77–78.
94. On the historicity of Acts, cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 34–44; Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989); F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 27–34; For a defense of the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, cf. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (4th ed., Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 607–49, and Theodor Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 3 vols., trans., M. W. Jacobus et al (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909), 2: 85–133 (§ 37).
95. For the Anglo-Catholic position, cf. Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church, 68–85. An evangelical Anglican approach is offered by Leon Morris, Ministers of God (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1964), 98 and passim; Kevin Giles, What On Earth is the Church? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 149–50 and passim; and Tinker, “Towards an Evangelical View of the Church,” in The Anglican Evangelical Crisis, 94–110.
96. Presbyterianism, i.e., that form of church government in which local elders are also members of a presbytery which has authority over several churches, is defended by: Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 581–92. A recent Presbyterian ecclesiology is that of Edmund P. Clowney, The Church (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 211–12.
97. Congregational church government with a single strong pastor is defended by A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan: Revell, 1907), 914–17; C. Peter Wagner, Leading Your Church to Growth (Ventura: Regal, 1984), 73 and passim; David L. Smith, All God’s People: A Theology of the Church (Wheaton: Bridgepoint, 1996), 375. Congregational government which allows for a plurality of elders but insists that authority is ultimately vested in the congregation is defended by Saucy, “Authority in the Church,” 219–38.
98. Cf. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 932–35; John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Master’s Plan for the Church (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 87–94, 179–99. Bible teachers from the Open Brethren assemblies have made the most significant contribution here. Cf. Donald L. Norbie, New Testament Church Organization (Chicago: Interest Magazine, 1955), 35–50; Kenneth A. Daughters, New Testament Church Government (Kansas City: Walterick, 1989), 37–59 and passim; Neil Summerton, A Noble Task (2d ed., rev., Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1993); Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (3d ed., rev., Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1995). Strauch has also written, with Richard Swartley, two training manuals for mentoring new elders: Study Guide to Biblical Eldership (1995) and The Mentor’s Guide to Biblical Eldership (1995), both published by Lewis and Roth.
99. Cf. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, ed. Donald A. Hagner (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 579; Morris, Ministers of God, 111; F. F. Bruce, “Practice or Principle (2),” Harvester 68 (February 1989): 7; Harold H. Rowdon, “Elders and Deacons,” Aware 70 (May 1991): 12-13, Idem., “Elders and Deacons: An Alternative,” Aware 70 (June 1991): 12-13. Bruce offers a quote from Henry Craik, George Müller’s fellow elder, that sounds much like the viewpoint of B. H. Streeter, mentioned above. Cf. Henry Craik, New Testament Church Order (Bristol: W. Mack, 1863), 3–4: “I may be regarded as advocating very latitudinarian opinions, but I am disposed readily to admit that there are passages in the inspired writings that seem, to some extent, to favor a species of Episcopacy; others that may appear to support Presbyterianism; very many, again, that uphold Congregationalism, and others, as clearly teaching what may be described as less systematic than any of the above organizations.” Craik (47–64) later seems to treat elder rule as normative. Cf. Coad, History of the Brethren Movement, 154–55; Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren, 124–25.
100. Ad hoc may be defined as follows: “for a special case only, without general application.” Cf. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, ed. D. B. Guralnik (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 17.
101. Cf. Gordon D. Fee, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics of Ad Hoc Documents,” JETS 28 (June 1985): 141-51.
102. George W. Peters, A Theology of Church Growth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 169, 172. Most Christians are objective enough to admit—at least about church governments other than their own—that history and culture have shaped church polity. And they can see that such structures can become binding, blinding, and blighting. Tradition can hinder progress, efficiency, and effectiveness. The question at hand, however, is whether or not there is a form of church government that is normative for all churches because it is prescribed by the apostles of Jesus Christ. If there is such a form it is highly unlikely that it will be a hindrance to the growth and development of the body of Christ. In that the church is a society gathered out from “all the world” and includes “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Mark 16:15; Rev. 5:9, 10) it is certain that any apostolic guidelines for church government will be “easily capable of universal application. Methods and forms which have only local or racial or class suitability are contrary to the genius and the need of the church.” Cf. G. H. Lang, The Churches of God (London: Paternoster, 1959), 32.
103. Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith, trans., Sierd Woudstra (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 388. Well-known pastor and writer, Gordon MacDonald wrote, “Today a church should be willing to change anything except its doctrinal distinctives.” Cf. “Ten Conditions for Church Growth,” Leadership 4 (Winter 1983), 45.
104. It is generally agreed that the terms elder, (πρεσβύτερος) overseer (ἐπίσκοπος), and pastor (ποιμήν/ποιμαίνω) are used to describe the same office. This is clear from Acts 20:17, 28 where the elders are called overseers and are said to shepherd (i.e., pastor) the flock (also see Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:2). Cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, 95–99.
105. The best summaries of the evidence are found in: Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 101–17, and George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 175–77. My own summary is adapted from these two works.
106. The dates used here are from Harold W. Hoehner, “A Chronological Table of the Apostolic Age” (unpublished class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1972).
107. Every church in which leadership is referred to in Asia Minor, either under Paul and his associates or under Peter’s ministry, has a plurality of elders. Cf. Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 177.
108. Antioch was the center for the Gentile mission.
109. Philippi was in Macedonia.
110. The assertion by critical scholars that elders are not mentioned in any of Paul’s letters to churches needs to be challenged. They are mentioned in Philippians, although the term overseers (ἐπίσκοποι) is used and not elders (πρεσβύτεροι). They are mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 5:12, although προῒστάμενοι (“those who have charge over”) is used instead of πρεσβύτεροι (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4, 5; 5:17). They are also probably mentioned in 1 Corinthians. In the list of 12:28 there are those who have some sort of office (apostles, prophets, teachers, helps, and administrators) as well as those who have a gift not associated with an office (miracles, healings, and tongues). Setting aside the foundational offices (apostles and prophets, cf. Eph. 2:20) and the non-office gifts, we are left with the three categories: teachers (διδάσκαλοι), helps (ἀντιλήμψεις), and administrators (κυβερνήσεις). In 1 Timothy 3 Paul mentions two duties of the overseer, viz., teaching (v. 2) and caring/ruling (vv. 4–5), which parallel the teachers and administrators of 1 Corinthians 12:28. The gift of “helps” is likely a reference to deacons. In short, the Corinthian assembly had elders/overseers who Paul refers to as teachers and administrators and deacons who are called helpers. It is likely, furthermore, that elders are also mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 as pastors and teachers. Cf. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 176; Lightfoot, Philippians, 194; TDNT, s.v. “κυβέρνησις,” by H. W. Beyer, 3: 1036.
111. I am excluding John (2 John 1, 3 John 1) because his use of the term elder refers to an individual and not to a situation of church government.
112. Manfred E. Kober, “The Case for the Singularity of Pastors,” Baptist Bulletin (June 1982): 8-10, 19. I am omitting Dr. Kober’s third argument, viz., “the argument from the nature of the pastorate,” because it does not really deal with the question at hand, viz., the plurality (or singularity) of elders in each congregation. Cf. also: Iain H. Murray, “The Problem of the ‘Eldership’ and Its Wider Implications,” The Banner of Truth 395–96 (August 1996), 36–56.
113. Similarly, in Titus Paul moves from the plural πρεσβύτεροι (“elders”) in 1:5 to the generic singular ἐπίσκοπος (“overseer”) in 1:7.
114. Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Revelation, ed. Robert Frew (New York: Harper, 1851; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 57–58.
115. Richard Chenevix Trench, Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia (6th ed., rev., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1897), 57–60. On the basis of this interpretation Trench argued that the episcopate had appeared in the church by the latter part of the first century a.d.
116. R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, ICC, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1920), 1: 34; TDNT, s.v. “ἄγγελος,” by G. Kittel, 1: 86–87. The angels of Revelation 2 and 3 are variously interpreted. I take them to be the guardian angels of the churches. Charles took them to be the heavenly doubles or counterparts of the churches. Mounce says that each of the seven angels is the personification of the prevailing spirit of that church. Cf. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 82.
117. If Epaphras was the solitary pastor of the Colossian church, it is striking that Paul kept him with him in Rome. This would imply that the Apostle was willing to leave the assembly without pastoral care—a most unlikely thought.
118. Cf. Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 45–50, for an explanation of this important concept. Kober (“The Case for the Singularity of Pastors,” 19) argues that this concedes the whole argument to proponents of a single pastor. To acknowledge one man’s unusual gifts is biblically proper. To be “first among equals” on a council of elders is quite different from being the only elder, i.e., the first over subordinates!
119. This is a common assertion today. Cf. Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 109; R. Alastair Campbell, The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 172; Rex A. Koivisto, One Lord, One Faith (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1993), 27–28, 244.
120. Kober (“The Case for the Singularity of Pastors,” 10), following Strong, hedges his bets at this point by conceding that some house churches may have had a plurality of elders. Cf. Strong, Systematic Theology, 915–16.
121. John H. Fish III, “Brethren Tradition or New Testament Church Truth,” EmJ 2 (Winter 1993): 135.
122. William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1991), liii; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 26. Cf. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 12.
123. Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 143.
124. It should be noted that 1 Timothy 3:1 does not use the term “office.” The term ἐπισκοπή (“office of overseer,” NASB) is rare in secular Greek and never has the sense of “office.” Knight (The Pastoral Epistles, 153) has “position of overseer.” The NIV is perhaps best: “If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer.…” As Schweizer (Church Order in the New Testament, 171–80) notes, nowhere in the New Testament do the apostles refer to elders or deacons as “officers.” This is striking in that the Greek language has a wealth of terms for “office” or “officer,” e.g. ἀρχή (“one at the head, ruler”), ἄρχων (“ruler”), τιμή (“position of dignity”), τέλος (“power of office”), λειτουργός (“priestly office”), πρᾶξις (“public office”), ἱερατεία (“priest’s office”). The caution of the apostles is due to the fact that they viewed the work of elders and deacons as tasks, functions or ministries, not as official platforms that distinguished the leaders from the people in a clergy-laity fashion. If by office, however, one simply means a formally recognized position with appropriate duties, then the elders and deacons were “officers” in the church. Cf. David Mappes, “The New Testament Elder, Overseer, and Pastor,” BS 154 (April 1997): 169.
125. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 175. Cf. the extended discussion of Acts 6:1–6 in Alexander Strauch, The New Testament Deacon (Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1992), 15–54.
126. It is clear from the list of qualifications of the men described in 1 Timothy 3:8–13 that the noun (διάκονος) and verb (διακονέω) are used in a technical sense to describe “the deacon as a church official.” Cf. TDNT, s.v. “διάκονος,” by Beyer, 2: 89.
127. Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 116.
128. George W. Knight III, “The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction,” JETS 39 (March 1996): 3-13. The above quote is on p. 3.
129. Knight, “The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction,” 7.
130. Knight, “The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction,” 12.
131. Strauch (Biblical Eldership, 106–7) offers as examples: James’ instructions to call for the elders (James 5: 14), Paul’s instruction to financially support them (1 Tim. 5:17–18), his instructions about their protection, disciplining, and restoration (1 Tim. 5:19–22), his instructions about their qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Tit. 1:5–9), his encouragement of those who aspire to the work (1 Tim. 3:1), his instructions about their examination (1 Tim. 3:10; 5:24–25), Peter’s instructions about submission to them (1 Pet. 5:5), the author of Hebrews’ instruction to obey them (Heb. 13:17), Paul’s teaching about their responsibilities (Tit. 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:12; Tit. 1:9), and Paul’s instruction to the church to be at peace with its elders (1 Thess. 5:12–13).
132. Strauch (Biblical Eldership, 107–8) offers as examples: James’ instruction about prayer for and anointing the sick (James 5:14), Peter’s charge to shepherd and oversee the flock (1 Pet. 5:1, 2), his warning against authoritarianism (1 Pet. 5:3), his promise of reward at the return of Christ (1 Pet. 5:4), his exhortation to humility (1 Pet. 5:5), Paul’s reminder that elders are appointed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28), his exhortation to guard against false teachers (Acts 20:28) and false doctrine (Acts 20:31), his reminder of the need for hard work, compassion, and generosity (Acts 20:35), his exhortation to be at peace with the congregation (1 Thess. 5:13).
133. The critical consensus is that church order is irrelevant to the gospel and theology. Pragmatism (i.e., necessity or expediency) is the determining factor in choosing a form of church government (Streeter, The Primitive Church, 261–62). T. W. Manson argued that all forms of church government have been effective. The one test that applies to all forms is pragmatic, not theological. Church order in the New Testament is secondary, “derivative, dependent, and functional,” not doctrinal in its significance (The Church’s Ministry [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1948], v, 100–103). Cf. Davies, “A Normative Pattern of Church Life in the New Testament?” 218–19. This critical orthodoxy is rejected by more than proponents of plural eldership. Michael Ramsey, for example, argues that episcopacy best expresses the Gospel and the nature of the church. Church order is not a matter of indifference, but is related to the inner meaning of the church and the Gospel itself (The Gospel and the Catholic Church, vi, 65 and passim).
134. Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 109–15. Earlier in his book (pp. 38-44) Strauch enumerates three practical reasons for a plurality of elders: (1) balancing people’s weaknesses, (2) lightening the work load, and (3) providing accountability.
135. Australian scholar, Robert Banks (Paul’s Idea of Community [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 53–54), says that of all the metaphors used in the New Testament for the church, those comparing the Christian community to a family are the most significant metaphors of all. Among other observations, he notes that God is our Father (1 Thess. 1:1), we have been adopted as sons (Gal. 4:4–5), we are children and heirs (Rom. 8:14–17), we are members of God’s household (Gal. 6:10), and fellow Christians are our brothers (Gal. 1:2; 1 Cor. 16:20, etc.).
136. In the Fall of 1995 my wife and I were given a tour of St. John’s University in St. Cloud, Minnesota. In the beautiful church building we saw dramatically illustrated the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church. Elevated behind the altar was the bishop’s chair, a little lower were pews for the ordained priests, and a little lower pews for the brothers in training. Lowest of all were the pews for the laity.
137. The family character of the church is displayed in a number of ways: the early believers met in homes (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19), they shared material possessions (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1), they ate together (Acts 2:46; 20:11), they greeted one another with affection (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20), they showed hospitality (Acts 16:15; Rom. 12:13), they cared for widows (Acts 6:1–6; 1 Tim. 5:1–16), and they disciplined their members (1 Cor. 5–6; 1 Cor. 2:1–11). Cf. Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 110. 
138. It is startling to find in a conservative evangelical journal the comparison of a Protestant pastor to a priest. “Like Old Testament priests, pastors are part of a formally designated and consecrated ministry, the nature of which calls for priestly acts at their deepest level.” The pastor, it is asserted, bears the responsibility for the service of worship and preserving the dignity of God’s house, while others arrange the flowers and organize the choir. Cf. John E. Johnson, “The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity,” BS 152 (April 1995), 194–95.
139. Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 115.
140. Alec Motyer, The Message of James, BST (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 189.
141. A. Boyd Luter, New Testament Church Government: Fidelity and Flexibility,” Michigan Theological Journal 2 (1991): 127, 135; Howard Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 124. Modern missiology with its demands for indigenous churches rather than biblically modeled churches offers many illustrations of this perspective. For example, Mahlon M. Hess argues that the form of church polity adopted by a given tribe will depend upon whether the indigenous government is basically local (congregational), regional (presbyterian), or a kingdom (episcopal). Cf. “Political Systems and African Church Polity,” in Readings in Missionary Anthropology, ed. William A. Smalley (Tarrytown, NY: Practical Anthropology, 1967), 193–94.
142. Cf. Berkhof, The Christian Faith, 388.
143. In this section I am closely following an unpublished paper by J. Gary Inrig, “Ecclesiology, Cultural Relativism, and Biblical Absolutism,” written for a course at Dallas Seminary in May 1969.
144. The supra-cultural nature of the church may be illustrated in at least two ways: (1) The relation of Jews and Gentiles in the church. The conventional wisdom of the modern “church growth” movement would dictate sub-cultural churches with side-by-side Jewish and Gentile assemblies each following their own cultural preferences. This, in fact, is what a vigorous and outspoken faction of the early church wanted. They did not want an integrated church, but a purely Jewish church, in which Gentiles gave up their cultural identity. The apostles ultimately rejected this idea [Gal. 2:11–14]. In spite of the cultural and evangelistic expediency of such a policy, it was rejected—there would be no church structure along racial and national lines. The reason was doctrinal—it would be a denial of the equal standing of Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ [Eph. 2:11–22]. (2) Slavery. The attitude of the Apostle Paul toward slavery is a striking illustration of the New Testament’s attitude toward culture. On the one hand he exhorts them to respect their masters (1 Tim. 6:1, 2), to give service to them as to God (Eph. 6:5–8), and to recognize the hand of God in their position (1 Cor. 7:20–24). On the other hand Paul undermines his culture’s authority by arguing that slavery has no validity within the church (1 Cor. 7:22; Gal. 3:28) and that slaves are to be treated as brothers (Philemon 16).
145. Morris, Ministers of God, 70. Cf. C. W. Dugmore, The Influence of the Synagogue Upon the Divine Office (2d ed., Westminster: Faith Press, 1964), 7–10 and passim.
146. The indebtedness of the early church to the synagogue can be overstated. To cite just two examples: (1) Elders predate the synagogue in Israel’s history [Exod. 19:7; Judg. 21:16], and (2) the synagogue had a chief officer [“head of the synagogue,” Luke 8:49; 13:14; Acts 18:8, 17], yet the New Testament assemblies never adopted this practice. Cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols., ed. Matthew Black et al (rev. ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 2:433–39.
147. The minimum number for a synagogue was ten men, as this was the quorum for a religious meeting (Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 2: 438). Cf. Aboth 3.6 in The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Neziḳin, 4 vols., ed. I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), 4: 30, which reads, “Rabbi Ḥalafta [ben Dosa] of Kefar Ḥanania said, ‘When there are ten sitting together and occupying themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: God standeth in the congregation of God [Ps. 82:1].’”
148. Cf. Noel Weeks, The Sufficiency of Scripture (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1988), 158–59.
149. Elisabeth Elliot, Shadow of the Almighty (New York: Harper and Row, 1958), 138–39.
150. Inrig, “Ecclesiology, Cultural Relativism, and Biblical Absolutism,” 14.
151. In support of the hypothesis that the church in Ephesus was being misled by some of the elders, Fee offers this evidence: (1) The errorists were teachers [1 Tim. 1:3, 7; 6:3], and teaching was a task of elders [3:2; 5:17]. (2) A significant part of the letter is allotted to the character, qualifications, and discipline of church leaders [3:1–13; 5:17–25], and many of the guidelines stand in obvious contrast to what is specifically said of the false teachers. It is noteworthy that two of the ringleaders are named and excommunicated [1:19–20]. Cf. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 7–8.
152. Cf. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 181.
153. James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World (1893; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 20.
154. John Stott, The Spirit, the Church, and the World: The Message of Acts, BST (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 82. Cf. R. B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Methuen, 1901), 33.
155. Cf. Robert Culver, “Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament,” BS 134 (April 1977): 136-37.
156. The term teaching in Acts 2:42 (διδαχή) refers to the act of teaching. It later came to refer to established and formulated doctrine. Cf. TDNT, s.v. “διδαχή,” by K. H. Rengstorf, 2 (1964): 163-65.
157. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 9.
158. John R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 15.
159. John R. de Witt, “Contemporary Failure in the Pulpit,” Banner of Truth (March 1981), 23. A newspaper columnist recently quipped that when the average church member asks the minister, “What will the sermon be about?” he does not want to know the subject. He really wants to know whether it will be about ten minutes long or about thirty minutes long.
160. J. I. Packer, “Why Preach?” in The Preacher and Preaching, ed. Samuel T. Logan, Jr. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1986), 5.
161. Stott, Between Two Worlds, 50.
162. I remember reading an interview with Dr. Billy Graham. He was asked how he could preach about hell from the Bible to unchurched people who reject biblical authority. He answered, “I just read to them verses about hell and watch them sweat!” Graham had great confidence in the Bible as a living book (cf. Heb. 4:12–13).
163. Stott, Between Two Worlds, 64, 75. Stott counsels Christians and preachers to: (1) exert greater discipline over our children’s use of TV, (2) penetrate the world of media and learn to use it, and (3) reckon with a TV-conditioned congregation in our church meetings.
164. Packer, “Why Preach?” 6.
165. Packer, “Why Preach?” 3–7.
166. There is, of course, a form of topical preaching that is valid, viz., the exposition of topics and doctrines of Scripture basing one’s remarks on the central passages that underlie those topics and doctrines.
167. Expository preaching is not just a running commentary on a passage, nor is it merely a lesson in ancient history. Rather, it is the communication of the exact and full meaning of a passage of Scripture in terms of our contemporary culture with the specific goal of helping people to understand and obey the truth of God. Cf. Stott, Between Two Worlds, 137–44.
168. Among many evangelicals there is a fundamental misunderstanding of preaching. According to the Second Helvetic Confession 18 (1566) the sermon is “the voice of Christ.” As John Murray notes in his comments on Romans 10:14–15, Paul views the sermon as the vehicle through which Jesus Christ Himself speaks. It is the means by which God addresses Himself to sinners. Christ speaks in the gospel proclamation; He is heard in the message spoken by His messengers. There is a great want of earnestness seen in much preaching today. Gone is the sober attitude of Richard Baxter, “I preached as never sure to preach again, And as a dying man to dying men.” This absence of the authoritative, prophetic note in much preaching is illustrated by an introduction I have heard too many times, “Brother So-and-So is now going to ‘share’ what the Lord has laid on his heart.” The word “share” is one of the most despicable platitudes ever used to describe a sermon. I agree with de Witt, “The minister must come from God, bearing God’s message, speaking God’s Word, standing in a sense even in God’s place, addressing us with that which in no way rests on his own authority.” Cf. “Contemporary Failure in the Pulpit,” 19–20, 23; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 2:58; Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York: Harper, 1877), 1: 412.
169. In many groups spontaneity is valued above substance and passion above preparation (Packer, “Why Preach?” 5).
170. John F. MacArthur, Jr., “Truth vs. Technique,” Reformation & Revival Journal 3 (Fall 1994): 17-42. According to many Reformed Christians there are three “marks” of the church, viz., the pure preaching of the Word, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline (Belgic Confession [a.d. 1561], Article 29, in Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, 3: 419). Cf. G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: The Church, trans. James E. Davison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 14–15. Some, citing Acts 2:47, would add a fifth priority to MacArthur’s list of four, viz., evangelism.
171. MacArthur offers as examples: up-tempo music; guest speakers who are comedians, not preachers; drama and entertainment instead of exposition; a church that featured a wrestling match featuring church employees; a pie fight during a Sunday morning service; a church with a special-effects system that can produce smoke, fire, sparks, and laser lights, etc. I am sure that MacArthur would not condemn all contemporary music or all use of film or drama. But his overall warning is salutary. There is a tendency in modern society for technique to replace truth.
172. Some time ago my good friend, Paul Sapp of Ohio, had a conversation with Dr. James M. Boice, the able pastor and Bible teacher from Philadelphia’s Tenth Presbyterian Church. “What you win them with you keep them with,” cautioned Dr. Boice.
173. Instructive here are the observations of a secular work, Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death (New York: Penguin, 1985), 63–4 and passim. He argues that the television age tends to turn everything into entertainment and amusement. Significantly, this secular commentator describes the pre-television age as the age of Exposition. “Exposition is a mode of thought, a method of learning, and a means of expression.” Exposition, he explains, is “the sophisticated ability to think conceptually, deductively, and sequentially; a high valuation of reason and order; an abhorrence of contradiction; a large capacity for detachment and objectivity; and a tolerance for delayed response.” He notes that the age of Exposition has been replaced by the Age of Show Business.
174. A number of years ago I spoke at a seminar in Chicago on the subject of preaching. A young friend of mine, at that time a full-time worker in a progressive Brethren assembly, told me that he had abandoned the “Dallas style” exposition he had learned under Haddon Robinson. “It’s too confrontational. I believe in preaching in a more relational fashion—teaching the Christian life as a world view. Gradually people accept this world view as their own.” Lost in his understanding was the biblical view that the gospel is “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8).
175. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1972), 17, 29–30, 37, 39. Dr. Lloyd-Jones, a physician by training, did not dismiss the need for personal work/counseling. Neither do other critics of the modern counseling movement. What he and other biblical men are saying may be summarized as follows: (1) Good biblical preaching should relieve the need for much counseling, and (2) biblical theology must not be replaced by pop-psychology in the pulpit. John White, the well-known writer and psychiatrist, also decried the present trend to substitute counseling for the exposition of the Word of God. He wrote, “Until about fifteen years ago psychology was seen by most Christians as hostile to the gospel. Let someone who professes the name of Jesus baptize secular psychology and present it as something compatible with Scripture truth, and most Christians are happy to swallow theological hemlock in the form of ‘psychological insights.’ Over the past fifteen years there has been a tendency for churches to place increasing reliance on trained pastoral counselors.… To me it seems to suggest weaknesses in or indifference to expository preaching within evangelical churches.…Why do we have to turn to the human sciences at all? Why? Because for years we have failed to expound the whole of the Scripture. Because from our weakened exposition and our superficial talks we have produced a generation of Christian sheep who have no shepherd. And now we are damning ourselves more deeply than ever by our recourse to the wisdom of the world. What I do as a psychiatrist and what my psychologist colleagues do in their research or their counseling are of infinitely less value to distressed Christians than what God says in His word. But pastoral shepherds, like the sheep they guide, are following…a new Pied Piper of Hamelin who is leading them into the dark caves of humanistic hedonism” (Flirting With the World [Wheaton: Shaw, 1982], 114–17). Old Testament scholar, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., added, “There just are no substitutes for declaring the whole counsel of God to the whole body of believers. All additives prove in the end to be more carcinogenic and detrimental to our spiritual health than we had ever imagined” (“The Future Role of the Bible in Seminary Education,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 60 [October 1996], 250).
176. Let me add one caveat here. I am not suggesting that all counseling or therapy is wrong—it is often very helpful to talk our problems out with a responsible, mature Christian elder, pastor, or counselor, and there may be occasions when a Christian will need medical help from a physician with psychiatric training. What I am saying is that our modern society has rejected the biblical explanation of evil. It has rejected the biblical terminology of sin for a new moral vocabulary that is largely psychological. Therapy is deadly when it encourages us to think of ourselves as helpless victims instead of the full-scale sinners and responsible moral beings that we really are.
177. “Harold J. Ockenga: Chairman of the Board,” Christianity Today (Nov. 6, 1981): 28.
178. It has been suggested that Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918), the father of the social gospel, lost his faith in orthodox Christianity during a trip to the holy land. He saw for himself the deplorable condition of the Palestinian roads for which Jesus had done nothing. He lost sight of the fact that Christ had better things to do than to busy Himself with physical comforts. Paul Verghese, a member of the Orthodox Syrian Church, said that the temptation of the Protestant churches is to replace evangelization with service. Cf. Kuen, I Will Build My Church, 291–92.
179. A major shift in evangelical thinking was first widely heralded at the Congress on World Evangelization held in Lausanne in 1974.
180. Proponents include C. Rene Padilla, Samuel Escobar, Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, and (sadly) John Stott. Carl F. H. Henry, who first called modern evangelicals to social action in his The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), has more recently expressed concern at where his ideas have led them. Cf. Carl Henry, “The Uneasy Conscience Revisited,” in Twilight of a Great Civilization: The Drift Toward Neo-Paganism (Westchester: Crossway, 1987), 170–72.
181. The social action of the nineteenth century was different than that advocated by today’s evangelicals in several ways: (1) The nineteenth century movement was preceded by the widespread proclamation of the gospel and the mass conversions of the Methodist revival. (2) The nineteenth century leaders were all agreed upon salvation by faith and the inerrancy and centrality of the Scriptures. (3) The nineteenth century evangelicals insisted on the personal nature of sin. (4) Nineteenth century social action was limited to social welfare, i.e., the attempts to alleviate existing problems. The differences are striking: (1) Modern evangelical social action has not been preceded by a widespread proclamation of the gospel and mass conversions. It has, in fact, been accompanied by a massive decline in personal morality and family breakdown. (2) Modern socially active evangelicals are marked by uncertainty about vital matters of faith and morality [witness the defections on inerrancy, the softness on personal sins of adultery, homosexuality, etc.]. (3) Modern social activists speak more of “structural sin,” “transforming society,” and “extending the kingdom” [understood in terms of political change] than they do of personal sin and discipleship. (4) Modern social activists are far more ambitious than their nineteenth century counterparts. They speak of the transformation of society, often in Marxist tones, often with little consideration of what is socially, economically, or politically possible. Cf. Rachel Tingle, “Evangelical Social Action Today: Road to Recovery or Road to Ruin?” in Melvin Tinker, ed., The Anglican Evangelical Crisis, 186–202.
182. Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, 19.
183. Packer, “Why Preach?” 5–6.
184. Quoted in Stott, Between Two Worlds, 50.
185. Packer, “Why Preach?” 15–21. Packer (pp. 8-14) defines preaching as follows: (1) Its content is God’s message to man. (2) Its source is a passage from the Bible, and the sermon will be grounded on that passage. (3) Its purpose is to inform, persuade, and call forth an appropriate response to the God whose message is being delivered. (4) Its perspective is applicatory. “Preaching is God-centered in its viewpoint, Christ-centered in its substance, and life-changing in its thrust.” (5) Its authority is divine in so far as the preacher is truly under the authority of Scripture.
186. As John Stott observed, the account in Acts 2 of the church’s baptism and indwelling by the Spirit is the ideal place to find out what a Spirit-filled church looks like. Acts 2:42 and its immediate context point to the following elements: the preaching of the Word, the fellowship of other Christians, the worship of God in the celebration of the Lord’s supper, the asking for divine aid in prayer, and the evangelism of the lost. Cf. “Setting the Spirit Free,” Christianity Today (June 12, 1981), 17–21.
187. James Montgomery Boice, “Manifesto for Effective Preaching,” Eternity (October 1975): 73.
188. For a number of years F. F. Bruce contributed a brief discussion question to The Harvester magazine. After the magazine ran an article on Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Bruce wondered if, “in order to realize his full potential as a great preacher, a man requires a pulpit of his own to serve as his base” (“Professor Bruce Asks,” The Harvester [Dec. 1980], 349). In a subsequent issue (February 1981, p. 16), well-known Bible teacher H. L. Ellison offered this response, “I have frequently asked staunch upholders of ‘assembly principles’ whether C. H. Spurgeon or Dr. Campbell Morgan, if they had been assembly members, subject to all the limitations placed on such members, could have achieved the results that they did. The answer was always, ‘No.’ Whereupon I suggested that not our principles, but our understanding of them, was at fault. We have fallen down and worshipped the Moloch of no one-man-ministry and failed to recognize the principle of recognition of gift. God challenges our feeble understanding by raising up the exceptional man…and showing us how little room there is for [him] in our traditions. As the late G. H. Lang used to say, ‘If the Apostle Paul were to come to the average assembly, the elders would have to say to him, ‘Sorry, Brother Paul, but we are booked solid for the next six months.’”
189. A man who gives himself to forty hours of administration or counseling will not have time for preaching. This will come as a shock to men who glibly say it takes two hours to prepare a sermon. In a recent volume by experienced preachers, all contributors said that it took from ten to twenty hours to prepare a sermon. The shortest preparation time was six hours, and the longest was forty. In evaluating these figures one should remember that all these preachers preached at least once a week, and all came to the task with a wealth of experience. How much longer should it take a neophyte? Cf. Haddon W. Robinson, ed., Biblical Sermons (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 27 and passim.
190. John R. W. Stott, Christ the Controversialist (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1970), 32. As Stott notes (pp. 27-32) the word evangelical has a long history. It was used around a.d. 200 by Tertullian in defense of biblical truth against the heresies of Marcion. Luther used the term to describe his doctrine. It was used in 1532 by Sir Thomas More in his attack on William Tyndale and his followers. He referred to them as “those evangelicalles.” Cf. Mark Thompson, “Saving the Heart of Evangelicalism,” in The Anglican Evangelical Crisis, ed. Melvin Tinker (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1995), 29.
191. As Anglican theologian, Mark Thompson, notes, “This is a dangerous business.” It is saying that other religious traditions (Catholic, charismatic, Liberal) involve some kind of error (“Saving the Heart of Evangelicalism,” 41). J. Gresham Machen saw this years ago. His famous work is not entitled, Evangelical Christians and Liberal Christians; it is entitled Christianity and Liberalism (1923; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).
192. Thompson, “Saving the Heart of Evangelicalism,” 28–29. Thompson pointedly rejects contemporary works that attempt to define evangelicalism in terms of sociology or spirituality. It must be defined theologically.
193. Open Brethren are evangelicals. They are “Brethren” because they share a common history with a group of churches and because they believe certain church practices are biblical and normative. They are “Open” because they believe that within the framework of evangelical theology there are differences of opinion, and allowances must be made for these in that the pervasive influence of sin on our hearts and minds keeps all of us from perfection in this life. Open Brethren make room for these differences without resorting to disenfranchising those who differ. Cf. Thompson, “Saving the Heart of Evangelicalism,” 40.
194. In this exposition of evangelical distinctives, I am closely following Thompson’s important essay, “Saving the Heart of Evangelicalism,” 29–38.
195. Cf. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Behold the Lamb: the Gospel and Substitutionary Atonement,” in The Coming Evangelical Crisis, ed. John H. Armstrong (Chicago: Moody, 1996), 119–38.
196. Beginning with E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977]) some very sophisticated attempts have been made to modify the biblical doctrine. Sanders argued that Judaism in the first century was not a religion of “works.” Rabbinic religion was not characterized by legalistic works-righteousness. Sanders has influenced the thinking of such men as James Dunn, Alister McGrath, and N. T. Wright. They emphasize the relational aspect of justification at the expense of the forensic. Righteousness, they argue, is covenant faithfulness and sin is covenant faithlessness. The word “justify” is to be understood as meaning “declaring to be within the covenant.” McGrath translates “justify” by “rectify.” Wright opposes what he calls the “invention” of the word “impute” to describe how righteousness can be taken from point A to point B. Cf. Geoffrey Thomas, “The 1994 Westminster Conference,” The Banner of Truth 382 (July 1995), 11, a report on the address “The Council of Trent and Modern Views of Justification by Faith,” by Philip Eveson.
197. J. I. Packer, The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem: An Analysis, Latimer Studies 1 (Oxford: Latimer House, 1978), 17–18.
198. Thompson, “Saving the Heart of Evangelicalism,” 39–40.
199. Alfred Kuen, I Will Build My Church, trans. Ruby Lindblad (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 314. For a number of the thoughts expressed in this conclusion I am indebted to Kuen.
200. Disheartening but insightful is this observation by a New England student: “My own concern for the Brethren movement is that they start to read the Bible again. The general ignorance of Biblical theology and content is appalling to say the least.… This lack of Bible study is leading to the powerlessness of many assemblies. Our Lord’s description of the Sadducees in Matt. 22:29, that they ‘knew neither the Scriptures or the power of God,’ is chillingly close to being accurate of many Assemblies today” (James Berney, “Some Inadequacies of Present-Day Brethren,” CBRF Journal 25 [September 1973], 17). Every year Emmaus Bible College administers a Bible knowledge exam to its incoming students—students who come from conservative and middle-of-the-road assemblies. For several years we have noticed a steady decrease in the grades on the exams, indicating a steady decrease in Bible knowledge. Happily, they score much better after their time at the college. A few years ago an elder in Minneapolis challenged the members of his assembly to read the Bible through in one year. He offered to take everyone who successfully met the challenge to dinner. I used the same “bribe” on my twelve-year-old daughter, and, I’m happy to say, we went out to dinner a year later!