The Last Reformation Part 3

In this standard of church-members.h.i.+p is found the secret of the union in one body of all apostolic Christians. The standard was _personal relations.h.i.+p to Christ_, and this relations.h.i.+p could be obtained only by an experience of salvation and humble obedience to the law of Christ. Therefore all the truly saved were members of Christ and members of each other. This standard being the same for all, it led to absolute equality among members. Hence Paul could say, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one _in Christ Jesus_" (Gal.

3:28).

The law of the church, as already stated, was simply "the law of Christ"; first as delivered orally by specially inspired apostles, and afterwards expressed by them in the Christian Scriptures.

[Sidenote: Organization and government]

The closest relations.h.i.+p necessarily existed between the organization of the church and its method of government. It is impossible for us to get a clear conception of either independently of the other; and in order to understand the subject at all, we must bear in mind the fundamental nature of the church itself, what it was and what it was designed to accomplish. The church was not, as we have seen, a mere aggregate of individuals that happened to gather or that a.s.sembled for ordinary purposes. A social club or a business organization would have possessed all those features. The church was the body of Christ, the body to which he gave spiritual life and through which he designed to manifest his power and glory. Hence its visible organization was secondary, merely incidental as the means for the accomplishment of those higher ends involved in the transcendental element of the church. The relation of the divine and the human characteristics was, therefore, the relation of _soul and body_--Christ, the soul; redeemed humanity, the body. The establishment of this relations.h.i.+p was the manifestation to the world of the "body of Christ." It was organization of the church.

From the foregoing considerations, we are certain that in the apostolic church the real emphasis was placed on _life_ and that the governmental power and authority of the church was derived from its divine life in Christ and not from its organization. Apostolic church government was, therefore, more than the adoption of some particular form of external organization and administration.

[Sidenote: Divine administration]

The origin of the church was divine. Jesus said, "I will build my church." And though, as we have seen, he employed human agents in its completion, these agents were so specially inspired and directed by Christ through the Holy Spirit that it was in reality _his_ work.

Jesus was not only the initial founder of the church, but he was its permanent head and governor. Isaiah, predicting the coming of Christ, declares that "the government _shall be upon_ HIS _shoulder_" (Isa.

9:6). And again, we read that "HE _is the head of the body, the church ... that in all things he might have the preeminence_" (Col. 1:18). He it was who called and commissioned Paul and then personally directed his ministerial labors (Acts 26:13-19; 16:6-9). He it was who walked in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, encouraging or reproving the congregations of Asia (Rev. 1:17, et seq.). He is "alive forever more" (Rev. 1:18); "the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13: 8); "upholding all things by the word of his power"

(Heb. 1:3). "To him be glory _in the church_ ... throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Eph. 3:21).

[Sidenote: Christ the living head]

Thus, the general nature of church government was an absolute monarchy, or, to use a better term, a theocracy. Christ was king and lawgiver, governor and administrator. Whoever the instruments employed in carrying out his purposes, whatever the scope of their particular activities, all were governed directly by Christ through the Holy Spirit. It was _his_ church. He was its living head. No other church was known in those days. It was only when the living, vital union of Christ with his church was lost to view that men began endeavoring to strengthen the bonds of external union by unscriptural human organization, just as when life is departed from the physical body we seek by an embalming process to prevent its speedy dissolution.

[Sidenote: Delegated authority]

In order to understand church government, therefore, we must begin at the central source of authority and proceed to its varied manifestations. We have seen that Christ employed human agents in accomplis.h.i.+ng his work; hence, in thus performing the work of Christ as commanded by Christ, and as personally directed by the Spirit of Christ, these men possessed the _authority of Christ_. Any church governmental authority that does not proceed directly from Christ through his Holy Spirit is but human authority, an usurped authority, and has no place in the real church of Christ.

[Sidenote: Ministerial oversight]

The apostles were the first to whom Christ delegated authority. They became his special representatives. They established the church and became responsible for its general direction and oversight, "the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" (Mark 16:20). But these twelve did not stand alone in the government of the church. Soon a host of ministers were raised up, and these also possessed divine authority for their representative lines of work.

To the elders of Ephesus, Paul said, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which _the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers_, to feed the church of G.o.d" (Acts 20:28). Peter also writes: "The elders which are among you I exhort ... feed the flock of G.o.d which is among you, _taking the oversight thereof_" (1 Pet. 5:1, 2). "The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto _I have called them_ ... so they, _being sent forth by the Holy Ghost_, departed" (Acts 13: 2-4). "AND HE GAVE some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:11, 12). In accordance with this standard, we read, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, _as they that must give account_" to him who is "that great shepherd of the sheep" (Heb. 13:17, 20). The ministers were under-shepherds appointed to feed the flock of G.o.d, for which service they had to give account to the great Shepherd.

The foregoing scriptures and many others show conclusively that, while in the apostolic church spiritual oversight was, in general, vested in the ministry, it did not originate with them; that it did not proceed from the general body of believers by a majority vote or by conference appointment; but that it came by the Holy Spirit direct from the great head of the church, who alone determined the general bounds of that authority and responsibility. This ministry, or presbytery, consisted of two cla.s.ses--local ministers and general ministers. Before proceeding from this general cla.s.sification to a discussion of the more specific duties and responsibilities of the individual ministers comprising this presbytery, I shall call attention briefly to the geographical distribution of their work as a body.

[Sidenote: Local and general phase]

We have already shown that the church in its visible phase was made up of various local congregations "set in order" by apostolic authority.

So far as their own local affairs were concerned, these congregations were autonomous. When a matter was purely local, such as the financial oversight and ministration in the church at Jerusalem, the local congregation itself determined the course of action and (excepting that cla.s.s of officials who were divinely chosen) who should be appointed to oversee it. In the Jerusalem example cited, the apostles suggested, "_Look ye out among you_ seven men," etc., "and the saying pleased the whole mult.i.tude: _and they chose_" the proper persons for that work (Acts 6:1-5).

But while these congregations possessed such autonomy and were distributed over a wide territory, they were not in all respects independent, isolated units. As members of Christ sharing in a common life and engaged in a common cause, they were bound together in one brotherhood by ties of fellows.h.i.+p and love. In addition to the union of separate individuals in one locality under the care of the local presbytery, the local congregations themselves were brought into close, sympathetic relations.h.i.+p with one another through the labors and influence of those general ministers who were not attached to particular churches, but whose gifts, callings, and qualifications fitted them for general service throughout the various congregations.

The responsibility and authority of these general ministers varied in accordance with their own gifts and qualifications and the degree of development attained by the churches among which they labored. In the case of infant churches, it is evident that oversight was of the apostolic kind--direct and immediate. But whenever they became thoroughly established, the principle of local autonomy was recognized and the relation of the general ministers to such congregations was evangelistic rather than apostolic--helpers and advisors, not administrative directors.

[Sidenote: Geographical distribution]

That the foregoing a.n.a.lysis is correct is abundantly proved by the history of events in the Acts respecting the geographical distribution of the churches and their relation to one another. Jerusalem was the original seat of Christianity. Isaiah prophesied, "Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isa. 2:3).

Jesus told the apostles "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem"

(Luke 24:47). And again, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Philip went from Jerusalem to Samaria and there preached Christ with great success. "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of G.o.d, _they sent unto them Peter and John_" (Acts 8:14). Later we read that when churches had been established throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, "it came to pa.s.s, _as Peter pa.s.sed throughout all quarters_, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda" (Acts 9: 31, 32). It was while he was on this general tour visiting the churches that he came to Joppa and there received the vision which led him to the household of Cornelius, after which he came to Jerusalem and was there called to account for his action in visiting the uncirc.u.mcised Gentiles.

There is no doubt that there was exerted from Jerusalem a general care over the surrounding churches. Some of the disciples who were scattered from Jerusalem at the time of persecution, went as far as Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the word, and many believed and turned to the Lord. "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: _and they sent forth Barnabas_ that he should go as far as Antioch" (Acts 11: 19-22). Barnabas went to Antioch and there found such a splendid work that he departed at once for Tarsus seeking Saul, and together they returned to Antioch and preached for a whole year.

[Sidenote: Operative centers]

While this principle of general superintendence of infant churches originated with the apostles themselves, it was extended to others who were not of the first apostles. Barnabas and Saul were successful at Antioch and there established the first Christian community outside the confines of Judaism, as the result of which Antioch became the seat of Gentile Christianity. Shortly afterwards "certain prophets and teachers" in the church at Antioch, men who were not of the original apostles, were directed by the Holy Ghost to send forth Barnabas and Saul on their first missionary journey, and they went forth establis.h.i.+ng local churches and afterwards setting them in order by ordaining elders, after which these ministers returned to Antioch, gathered the church together, and gave them a report of their work.

Antioch was, therefore, an operative center.

At a later time Paul established the truth in Ephesus, the chief city of Proconsular Asia. As might naturally be expected from the strategic position and political importance of that city, Ephesus also became an operative center for Christianity, "so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks" (Acts 19:10). Thessalonica in Macedonia and Corinth in Achaia are other examples of the kind.

[Sidenote: Regional units]

The work of the church naturally fell into these geographical units; therefore the word "church" is sometimes used as a collective term designating a body of regional congregations. The church "throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria" (Acts 9:31), "the seven churches which are in Asia" (Rev. 1:11), "the churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor.

8:1), "the churches of Galatia" (1 Cor. 16:1).

We must bear in mind, however, that this regional concept of the church was not an integral part of fundamental apostolic church government, but was merely incidental, the result of geographical location. In fundamental a.n.a.lysis distinctions are always drawn between things that are _different_, not between things of the same kind. These regional churches were not different kinds of churches; they were not bound together in separate groups by an external organization which placed a wall between them and other congregations of the saints. There was no authority here for the national-church theory nor for the sectarian church idea. Geographical separation there was, but not denominationalism.

[Sidenote: Common bond of unity]

We have already shown from Paul's writings that under his ministry both Jews and Gentiles were united in one body, "the _same_ body."

That these regional units to which we have referred were no denial of this clear truth, but that collectively they const.i.tuted one body, is further shown by the indications we have of their _operative unity_.

Notwithstanding the poor facilities for communication and travel in those days, which made general cooperation very difficult, and notwithstanding the fact that the record of historic Christianity in the Acts is exceedingly brief, we have, nevertheless, clear proof that there was cooperation throughout the apostolic church. Two instances, one of a business nature, the other ecclesiastical, establish this point. The churches of at least three provinces of the Roman Empire--Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia--united under Paul's direction in establis.h.i.+ng a weekly financial system, the immediate object of which was to a.s.sist in accomplis.h.i.+ng a particular object in which they were all interested (2 Cor. 8:9; 1 Cor. 16:1-3). The ecclesiastical example is the council of the apostles and elders held in Jerusalem and recorded in Acts 15. A question of doctrine and practise arose in Antioch; the church there was not able to settle it; therefore it was "determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other with them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question" (verse 2).

This was not a general council of the church. No other sections or provinces were represented. Nor did it meet as a legislative body, even though there were present specially inspired apostles, to whom had been given the commission to unfold the gospel as an authoritative revelation. It is clear that the ministers of this council even sought to avoid the legislative function. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" (verse 28). While this incident does not prove an administrative human heads.h.i.+p of the whole church centralized at Jerusalem, it does prove that the individual congregations were not isolated units, but that they had respect for, and sought the advice and counsel of, older established congregations, and particularly of those general ministers whose gifts, qualifications, and reputation fitted them for general care of all the churches.

When we consider the divine nature of the church's organization, with the ever-living Christ working mightily in all his ministers and through them in particular administering its government, we can see that the entire church was necessarily one body joined together in a common fellows.h.i.+p and actually laboring together in the performance of common tasks.

[Sidenote: Bishop and elder]

The presbytery, to whom was given particular oversight and government of the church, was set apart by the Holy Ghost for this special work.

Different terms, such as "elder" and "bishop," were used to designate this office. The term "bishop," which literally means _overseer_, implies the duties of the office, while "elder" denotes its rank. That these terms were used interchangeably and applied to the same order of persons is proved by Acts 20:28 (cf. 17); Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 8; t.i.t. 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2. This was admitted by many early writers, as Jerome, Augustine, Urban II, Petrus Lombardus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others.

From the general cla.s.sification already given, let us proceed to the specific. This body was made up of elders or bishops. The fact that the terms "elder" and "bishop" were applied to all the presbyters shows equality of rank; that the office was one. We find, however, that these elders as individuals were diversified in their gifts and callings in accordance with the specific work which the Holy Ghost designed them to perform. Under one cla.s.sification there were, broadly speaking, two kinds of elders--local and general; that is, those whose sphere of operation was particularly local and those whose influence, work, and responsibility extended beyond any congregational limitation. This distinction was not made arbitrarily, however; for it was essential to the performance of the twofold cla.s.s of work to be done and was the inevitable result of that operation of the Spirit in individual ministers which fitted them particularly for these distinctive lines of activity.

[Sidenote: Divine gifts]

To be still more specific, we must go a step farther and consider the reason why and the process by which ministers became differentiated from other saints. In this we shall find the inner secret, both of particular spiritual organization and of divine church government. The apostle says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" and "G.o.d hath set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him" (1 Cor. 12:13, 18). These texts suggest more than a mere attachment to the body: they imply _functional activity in the body_.

The functions of the body as described by Paul means the exercise of spiritual gifts. "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit ... there are diversities of operations, but it is the same G.o.d _which worketh all in all_. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues; but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (1 Cor. 12: 4-11).

[Sidenote: Basis of ministerial authority]

The foregoing scripture is a mere enumeration of the gifts that G.o.d implanted in the church as a body. The more particular application of these gifts and their relation to church organization and government are given further on in the same chapter. "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And G.o.d hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? _But covet earnestly the best gifts_"

(verses 27-31).

Comparison of verses 4 to 11 with verses 27 to 31 of the chapter just quoted shows conclusively that one is the counterpart of the other, the latter merely amplifying and explaining the former. From this clear teaching it is evident that the work of apostles.h.i.+p, of teaching, of governing, etc., were all based upon and grew out of divine gifts implanted in the heart by the Holy Spirit.

The same truth is taught by Paul in another place. Speaking of Christ, the apostle says, "When he ascended up on high, he ... _gave gifts unto men_ ... and he gave some, _apostles_; and some, _prophets_; and some, _evangelists_; and some, _pastors_ and _teachers_; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph. 4: 8-12).

According to these scriptures, the very governmental positions of the church with their authority and responsibility were the product of those gifts and qualifications bestowed upon certain individuals in particular. Such gifts could be legitimately coveted with a view to spiritual edification of the body (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:12). "If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work" (1 Tim. 3:1).

"Helps" doubtless included that cla.s.s of a.s.sistants commonly called deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-11).

Since in the primitive church organization and government were determined by the divine gifts and callings possessed by individuals, it is evident that we have in this something totally different from that later conception of church government as a mere human arrangement. At a subsequent time, as we shall show, church government was patterned after the forms of political government in that it was vested inherently in men. Four such forms have been developed--the imperial, or papal; the episcopal; the presbyterial; and the congregational. While these four differ in external form, they are all alike in fundamental character, in that they a.s.sume that the governing power rests inherently in _men_.