| When the Saviour ascended to heaven he left behind | ||
|---|---|---|
| By Philip L. Powell.
When the Saviour ascended to heaven he left behind three things for the effective work of His Church: Avoid diversions:Whenever leaders and members pursue the idea that there is a particular pattern or model of Church government taught in the New Testament, schism and division result. It happened with the early Brethren people. John Nelson Darby and George Muller divided over the issue. It also happened among the early Pentecostals. The relationship of two brothers, George and Stephen Jeffries, and the entire Elim movement was fractured by it. At the time a new group called The Pattern Church was established on the mistaken notion that there is an absolutely clear governmental pattern taught in Scripture.And now it has happened again within the ranks of CWM (CETF) and Vanguard. This is very sad and could and should have been avoided. To the extent that I contributed in any way to what has happened I can only express sincere regret. Principles not procedures:I shall be eternally grateful for the godly and wise counsel I received as a young man in the ministry, from older men who I still look on as mentors, though I don’t blame them for the mistakes that I made along the way. (I started to preach at 14 and pastored a fellowship at 19 so I know I made many mistakes and probably still make some.) One of my mentors was the late Denis Clark who had some quaint sayings. One of them was, “God does not work on the basis of formulae but on the basis of principle. Our problem is that we so often try to turn a principle into a formula.”Sadly some men are slow to learn this. The late Bill Bright is a case in point. He formulated the so-called Four Spiritual Laws. Shortly before his recent death, in consultation with Ray Comfort, Bill Bright renounced the whole methodology that he foisted upon the church. We admire his honesty and openness but regret that it took so long for the truth to dawn that God is bigger than a formula and that the only rule in the Kingdom is the rule of God’s Word. Of course there were those – possibly many – who came to salvation through the four spiritual laws, which goes to show the magnificence of the overruling grace of our sovereign Lord notwithstanding our humanness. This equally applies to the issue of Church Government with its inevitable flaws, no matter what system is adopted. Here is revealed the great wisdom of our Lord and another partial answer to the question we posed earlier. One reason why neither Christ nor the New Testament writers provide us with a clear-cut governmental pattern is to allow for adaptation within social culture and political expression for what most suits the time, albeit always without neglecting clear biblical principle. Where the scripture is clear then let us speak unequivocally. Where it is silent then let us allow for diversity of opinion and let us not force a view, for in so doing we shall simply end up twisting Scripture to make it say something that we want it to say. The starting point – Christ Broke the Mould:As we expressed above it is significant that our Lord Jesus did NOT ordain “elders”. He ordained “apostles”. In so doing He broke the Old Testament mould which stretched right back to the time that Moses, on account of the pressures of the children of Israel and in line with the instructions of Jehovah, appointed elders to share his responsibility in leadership (Numbers 11: 16-17).What Christ did in appointing apostles and not elders begs two questions:
Interestingly the expression “apostles and elders” is employed 6 times in the New Testament (Acts 15: 2, 4, 6, 22, 23 and 16:4) and always in that order. It is never reversed to read “elders and apostles”. Ministerial authority:Do apostles have authority? The answer to this question is equally clear to any good Bible student. Of course they do. But you must clearly define what “authority” in this setting means.It has NOTHING to do with structured, civil or even religious authority. This is where my former colleague has shown his great confusion and where he will end up confusing many people unless the matter is corrected immediately. For example he writes: “Did Jeremiah have authority? No the authorities persecuted him.” (Van 17, September 2003 – page 14). The writer is alluding to the “authority” (or non-authority in his view) of a prophet not an apostle. But the principle applies equally to apostles. The statement is really quite silly grammatically, logically and theologically, but at its heart is this grave confusion about what constitutes AUTHORITY. Let’s stay for a moment with the notion of prophets having no authority, which is what the article BIBLICAL ECCLESIOLOGY – Part 4 – Authority and Ministry argues and then applies to all four (five) of the ascension ministry gifts. Let me say right away that the notion that these ministry gifts of Christ have NO authority contradicts scripture, as I will hope to prove. “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did you not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet” - Matthew 21: 25-26. The context of this statement by Christ was one relating to authority – Jesus’ authority to teach and heal: “And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority are you doing these things? and who gave you this authority?” (verse 23). Jesus answered by asking His critics another question relating to the authority of John Baptist to perform baptism. Incidentally He often did this sort of thing – turn an awkward or a personal question back on the person who asked. The question and the response of those questioned clearly show that both Christ and the elders of the Jews (see context Matt 21: 23-27 c/f Mark 11: 27-33 and Luke 20: 1-8) recognised that John the Baptist, as a prophet, did have authority. Who gave him that authority is the vital question, but the point is as a PROPHET he did have authority, as did Jeremiah and Elijah and ALL true prophets. If the fact that the civil authorities persecuted Jeremiah proves that he had no authority, and by extension that prophets per se do NOT have authority and by further extension that all of the ministry gifts of Christ are without “authority” then what about Christ Himself? Was He also without authority, seeing He was persecuted by the “authorities” of the day even to the point of death? The answer is obvious. Now let’s look at the “apostles” whom Jesus ordained at the very time of their ordination. Did they or did they not have AUTHORITY? “ And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. (14) And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (15) And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:” – Mark 3: 13-15. Apostolic authority:“Exousia” the Greek word translated “power” in verse 15 is more accurately rendered “authority”. This is the Christ-delegated authority that is associated with all of the ministry gifts of Christ. This truth is set forth at the outset of Christ’s earthly ministry in the appointment of apostles – and I again repeat NOT “elders”.For Christ was setting the basic modus operandi of His Kingdom when He appointed (ordained) apostles i.e. those who are sent with authority. Ministry carries with it authority and authority results in true ministry, but, and here is the important issue, this authority has absolutely nothing to do with structured or civil or even religious authority. It is spiritual authority. As an aside I would point out that Siam’s reference to a child going to a shop with money to buy bread3 is an inept illustration of an “apostle” = “sent one”. Apostles are NOT children buying bread.
Offices or Ministries:“For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office” - Romans 11:13“By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name” - Romans 1:5 “If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord” - 1 Corinthians 9:2 “(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (Jews), the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)” - Galatians 2:8 That the term apostleship defines an office would appear, from the above Bible verses, to be axiomatic. Add to them the following comments about Judas, who was, in common with the “eleven”, ordained by Jesus as an apostle, and the clear answer to our first question seems to be beyond dispute -- – Yes apostles by New Testament definition are offices (officers) as well as ministries: “ For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric (office of a bishop) let another take.” - Acts 1: 20 “That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” - Acts 1:25 None of the ministry gifts of Christ should be used as a title. If the term pastor is capitalised it rightfully refers to Christ alone as Siam Bhayro correctly and very well argues in his third article entitled PASTORS (VANGUARD 16 June 2003 – pages 17-19) in his Biblical Ecclesiology series. But that fact equally applies to all the ministry gifts of Christ and also to elders and deacons. There is agreement that these two latter terms are offices. The above references to apostles, in our view prove that the same applies to apostles and by extension to all the ministry gifts of Christ listed in Ephesians chapter four. As a side issue it should be noted that the New Testament identifies different categories of “apostles”. 1) Christ is the only ONE of whom the definite article is used and the ministry gift capitalised in the New Testament. He is the Apostle, High Priest (Heb 3: 1), Shepherd (Pastor), Bishop (Elder) (1 Peter 2: 25), Prophet (John 7: 40), and Teacher (Master) (Matt 23: 8) in an exclusive sense; 2) Foundational apostles, usually referred to as the “apostles of the Lamb.” These were unique and will never be replaced or replicated – c/f Ephesians 2: 20. 3) General Church apostles – these constitute an “open list” as witness the several references to “false apostles” in the New Testament. If there were a recognised (closed) list of true apostles then “false apostles” would not have survived unless they managed to infiltrate the list. 4) Local Church apostles – c/f 1 Corinthians 12: 29. The latter is a rather controversial suggestion in some circles, but I believe it helps to explain the nature and function of the New Testament local Church. It also shows that there is no justification for a clergy-laity divide which I have long argued against as being the essence of Nicholaitanism. Local church apostles are local men who are foundational to the church in their area and yet often totally insignificant in their person and their work outside of their local church. They may be recognised in some other function e.g. eldership but they may not be. They carry with them the authority and the disposition of their Master. Are all apostles?The second of our two questions (is every believer one of the five ministry gifts of Christ?) raises an issue relating to the sovereignty of Christ as the Head of His Church as well as a question about the correct interpretation of Ephesians 4: 7-13, especially verses 7 and 11.Lets have a good look at what Paul teaches about the ascension ministry gifts of Christ in Ephesians chapter four: “And He (Christ) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” (verse 11). Verse 8 tells us that the ascended Lord gave gifts to men then verse 11 describes what (or who) those gifts were and verses 12 to 16 tell us the purpose of their being given: “For the perfecting of the saints, for (unto) the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: (14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro . . . etc ”(verses 12-14) Verses 8 and 11 are keys to understanding what Paul is teaching here. The gifts that the ascended Christ gave were men, which were given to men. Of course “men” is generic i.e. non-gender, and is to be interpreted in the context of ALL Scripture as to whether male and female apply. Verse 7: “But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” This says that “grace” is given to “every one”. It does NOT say that the gift or the gifts (c/f verse 11) are given to every one. Is “every one” to be understood in an absolute, general or loose sense? Is the grace “given” in the sense of being possessed or being available? It really is a matter of interpretation, which requires word definitions within the context. The Greek “didomi” rendered “is given” signifies to give in a general sense as distinct from its synonym “doreomai” = “to present” or “to bestow” in a more particular sense. Clearly the “every one” does not mean every one without exception, as that would include people within and outside the body of Christ. Frequently the word is used in a general sense even within a particular context. It does not necessarily convey the idea that the grace that is spoken of here is given directly to every one without exception within the body of Christ. The expression is far more general than that. This grace, which is available (given) to “every one” is said to be “according to the measure of the gift of Christ” i.e. to those who function as one of the ministry gifts there is adequate “grace” for him to so function and to those who benefit from his ministry there is sufficient grace to receive that benefit. The immediate result is the maturing of the saints so that they in turn may take up their ministry and thus contribute to the building up of the body of Christ (verse 12). No one is excluded and none is special except Christ. The end result is the unity of the faith by each member becoming more like Christ and avoiding deceitful and divisive doctrines (vs 13 & 14). What a challenge and what a glorious prospect. Recognise Principles:It is vital that we appreciate and embrace the clear principles of God’s Word in respect of the matters that have surfaced through this dispute and the Biblical Ecclesiology series of articles in which Siam Bhayro wrote some very good things albeit others which are open to question and challenge. Below are listed some of the principles that occur to me. There may be others.1.Shared Responsibility, Authority and BenefitsWhile there is room for difference of opinion regarding details of local church government there is clearly no place for a one-man band, as this must ultimately destroy fellowship. Irrespective of whether the governing body comprises a board of “elders” or “pastors” or “deacons”, or whatever term is used, the underlying requirement is that there be shared responsibility and authority. In fairness we should acknowledge that this does largely pertain, even within the groups that VANGUARD and CWM have criticised.A large percentage of churches in most countries now operate on the basis of multiple pastors, who in biblical practice really function as “elders” even if they are not so named. There are dangers in this, especially if all or most are paid full-time pastors and are relatives or close friends. Cronyism and nepotism are dangers that must be guarded against within the church body. Some boards of elders or pastors delegate authority in specified areas to a person who may be recognised as the “leading” elder or “senior” pastor. While the use of such terms may not find direct biblical support, in principle there is nothing wrong with this practice from a biblical perspective. Modern life does demand certain practicalities. This may be a partial explanation for the procedure in the dispute that Siam Bhayro refers to by “The last church that made me persona non grata”.4 Certainly his reference to “the mode of church government in most Pentecostal and Charismatic fellowships” being “by a “Pastor” – one man”5 is disputable. Benefits including payment for full time ministry should be balanced in the light of the rights and needs of the whole. In our view there are a number of principles that should be taken into account. Scripture does NOT support the idea that payment to pastors and other full time Christian workers should be on a “needs only” basis as Siam affirmed in his article on PASTORS (VAN 16, June 2003). While we agree with him that all local church fellowships have a responsibility to help those who have genuine needs, they should not do so at the expense of those who have given themselves to full time ministry and who have no source of income outside of the local church. There is no biblical justification for a full time minister to be made wealthy or to be kept poor through payment for his ministry. Siam cited Romans 12: 13 as the biblical basis for his assertion that payment is to be on a “needs only” basis, but his argument is weak because it ignores so much that is taught in Scripture on the topic. It is worthy of an entire article on the subject. Suffice for the present to compare the following and to take into account the principles that we have listed at the end of this article: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double (= twofold i.e. twice the amount) honour (from root “to pay”), especially they who labour in the word and doctrine” - 1 Timothy 5:17. 1 Corinthians 9: 7-14 “Who goes to war any time at his own charges? who plants a vineyard, and does not eat of its fruit? or who feeds a flock, and does not eat of the milk of the flock? . . . (11) If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? . . .(13) Do you not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they that wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? (14) Even so has the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” – “Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality” - Romans 12:13. A study of 1 Cor 9: 1-14 shows that Paul is basically arguing that it is NOT wrong for a full time church worker to receive proper (just) payment for his work. It is absurd to argue that the illustrations of the ox, the Levite, the soldier and the farmer refer to food and needs only. Soldiers were not paid on the basis of necessity, nor were the Levites who were specifically told that their portion (inheritance) was linked to the priestly sacrifices (Nums 18: 20-21 etc). What they obtained through their work became the means of legitimate trade and exchange. Admittedly it was not money as we understand it today but it was a fair provision for the normal social intercourse of their time. Money as a sole basis of trade and exchange is a comparatively modern innovation. In bygone times commerce and industry operated on a mixed basis of the use of money and the exchange of goods. This has to be taken into account in our reasoning. The context of Romans chapter 12 does NOT relate to the topic of payment for full time ministry. It is dealing with the normal interaction of the various members of the “body”. The principle of the meeting of needs of all the members is important but to apply it to the topic of payment to those who work full time in the affairs of the church, other than as a bottom line requirement, is not good Bible exegesis – see below for more on this topic. 2.Dictatorial AuthoritarianismThis should not be countenanced at any level – by leadership or membership. There is always a flip side to any coin. Authoritarianism can be manifest by members towards their leaders, although I do confess that it is normally the other way nowadays. That was not always the case. In earlier times some pastors were “kept under the thumb” by authoritarian elders and/or members. The point is – it is wrong either way.Those who control the money sometimes enforce their authoritarianism within the church or para-church ministry. In human affairs the golden rule is that he (she) who holds the gold RULES, but NOT in the Kingdom of God. The giving, withholding or implicit threats about money can be extremely manipulative and some times even those who are doing it do not perceive it. Our Lord’s comment, “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt 6: 24 c/f Luke 6: 13) is most instructive. He did not say, “I will not allow you to serve God and mammon.” He said that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do it. Scripture and Church History bear ample testimony to the fact that God has prospered and used wealthy people to aid His work, but never in a controlling or manipulative manner. In all things relating to the Kingdom (church) there must be mutual and common submission. This applies in a fellowship – church or para-church – and in a family. Many a family has been ripped apart and non Christian members of that family lost to the Christian cause because of non-agreement about the use of family funds. “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre (= eagerness for base gain), but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown of glory that does not fade. Likewise, you younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yes, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he cares for you – 1 Peter 5: 1-7. 3.Popery and ProtestantismWe all admit that the Roman Catholic Church has introduced heretical doctrines and practices, which to some extent may have influenced the wider Church, but I think we need to be very careful about our facts. In an attempt to push his point about “pastors” (VAN 16) Siam overstretches himself to the extent of ignoring a glaring omission in an original quotation that he puts forward in support of his argument. He refers to the RCC system of “Holy Order” and “Apostolic Succession” and then quotes from Addis & Arnold’s Catholic Dictionary.6 Siam is arguing against what he calls the “pastoral ministry” as he perceives it to be practiced today in our Churches. The quote from Addis & Arnold makes no reference to the pastoral ministry. It refers to “Bishops, Priests, Readers, Exorcists (?)” but no mention of “pastors” with or without a capital ‘p’.Certainly we can blame Rome for priest-craft – but a biblical (modern) pastor is not a priest. We should all disagree with the RCC doctrine of “apostolic succession” and with their ideas about “holy orders” but this careless un-sourced and un-documented idea that the “pastoral system” comes from Rome needs to be challenged. I suggested to my former co-editor that he was using a convenient throw away line of attributing something that he disagreed with to Rome without any substantial evidence. To the unthinking the argument appears convincing. Honest assessment demands something more accurate and more authentic. That aside it is a slander on honest and sincere men who have devoted their lives to full time pastoral ministry and who themselves totally disagree with Rome’s teaching and practices. I suggest that we should all be very careful about reactions to abuses – real or perceived. 4.Not Many Teachers:The idea that “every one” is an apostle or a prophet or an evangelist or a pastor-teacher in terms of the ministry gifts of Christ is obviously wrong. If correct then why does Paul limit the teaching activity for example of women in respect of the church to the home or to other women – see 1 Timothy 2: 12 c/f Titus 2: 3-5. Certainly they may teach but that does not make them “teachers” in terms of Ephesians chapter 4. A similar confusion applies to evangelism and the office of an evangelist. Incidentally there is no such thing as “the ministry gift of evangelism”7. The gift is that of the evangelist i.e. the man is the gift and there is only one who is so identified in the New Testament – Philip the evangelist who had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21: 8-9). Interestingly his daughters are not called “prophets” even though they did prophesy, which Paul later allows within certain restrictions (see 1 Cor 11: 5). In like manner there were many who evangelised (see Acts 8: 1-5) but only one in the entire New Testament is called an evangelist, just as only one person is identified as a prophet in the New Testament Church - Agabus. Were there other evangelists and prophets? Probably. But the point is that the activity (ministry) does NOT equate to the office – viz the ministry gift.To teach God’s Word in a public forum – pulpit or pen – is an awesome responsibility. It should not be lightly entered into. This is one of the things that has most distressed me about our rift and what now appears to be the position and direction of independence that Vanguard is taking. We all need checks and balances. The local church is a group of interdependent people who look to the Lord for guidance. The wider body of Christ is a group of interdependent groups (local churches) who likewise look to the Lord for guidance. To not be “beholden to anyone” as VANGUARD 17 (September 2003) front-page states is in my view an extremely dangerous position to take. “My brethren, be not many masters (teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. . .” – James 4: 1-2 IN SUMMARY:Christ gave His sacred and precious blood for our salvation. He promised “another” (i.e. Greek “allos” = one of the same kind, NOT “heteros” = another of a different kind) COMFORTER, who, He said, would lead us into ALL truth (c/f John 14: 16 with John 16: 19).He left behind a group of trained men whom He called “apostles” and to whom He entrusted His future Church. He did not give us a set of rules on how to govern the Church either locally or universally and said almost nothing about it. In addition the promised Holy Spirit, through Christ’s foundational apostles and by the Word that He inspired provided us with ONLY principles and not a clear pattern on how we should interrelate in respect of the administration of His Kingdom. If this is the case then how dare we formulate a system beyond what is written either by way of teaching or by mandate in an attempt to bind it on others. No wonder the issue of Church Government has always been and will always be divisive, irrespective of how it is cloaked. IN CONCLUSION:The Old and New Testament scriptures present us with the great principles that God builds His Kingdom upon.Some of these are: RIGHTEOUSNESS (honesty and integrity) and JUSTICE (impartiality in judgment); MERCY (kindness and forgiveness) and TRUTH (openness and sincerity); LOVE (how God meets man) and LIGHT (how God reveals and treats sin); REDEMPTION (price paid) and RECONCILIATION (no resentment). Provided we make these primary they become the great levellers and regulators regarding all other secondary or subordinate issues, including Church government and ministerial operations. That is not to say that we should disregard the issue of leadership and the very high standard that Scripture requires of those who govern and who teach – see 1 Timothy chapter 3: 1-13 especially verses 2 to 7 in regard to elders. The point I am making is that our interpretation of Bible passages must NOT set aside the great principles of scripture. Take for example the question of payment to full time ministry. Is it right that men should make themselves wealthy from their service within the Church while others who actually donate to them are in some cases poor? No of course it is NOT right. Or to put it the opposite way – is it right that a full time minister should be paid on a “needs only” basis while others who work no harder receive a high wage? No of course it is NOT right – why? Simply in both cases because one or more of the above clearly established principles of God’s Word have been broken. Now if you use passages in the Bible to justify either of these clear breaches of the building blocks of God’s Kingdom, then you have missed something and you are twisting Scripture. Take another look through the eyes of someone else. “. . . let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you art judged” - Romans 3:4. “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be reconciled to God” - 2 Corinthians 5:20. Gloria Deo. [ TOP ] ... [ Part 1 ] ... [ Part 2 ] ... [ Part 3] ... [ Part 4 ] ... [ BACK ] Appeared in Issue CETF NR MONTH YEAR |
NEW! Must read! Details HERE...  Order HERE.. |
|
-Last revised-