This is part three of three. There are three questions for this week’s Bible Study at church and this is the last one.
Great Doctrines of the Bible by: D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Assignment: Volume 3 Chapter 1: The Marks and Government of the Church
ALWAYS USE SCRIPTURE AS YOUR FOUNDATION WHEN ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
Question #3. Of the types of church polity listed, what type most resembles the government your church uses and how are decisions arrived at in your church? How does this government vary from a leadership format that you experienced in another church you attended? Explain how a decision was arrived at in the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. How did the ramifications of that decision effect the foundational beliefs of the young Christian church?
My church is “congregational” or “local-independent” in that there is no higher council or other system of government that oversees practice or teaching for the church. It has a dependence on Scripture and fellowship that isn’t quite so apparent in other churches. I have been to a Presbyterian for a short time and the impression I got was a sort of more codified, dogmatic (in a sense of rote teaching) presented itself. The atmosphere at the church was one of “we believe in accordance with the council and the Bible” whenever teaching took place. This wasn’t bad, per-say as there was agreement between the presbytery and the Scriptures. I grew up in Baptist type churches which, as Lloyd-Jones explained, really do not all conform to the congregational independence they usually claim. In contrast, I have also been to a non-denominational Pentecostal church (of the extreme type) which was entirely independent and had a powerful focus on fellowship but no leadership. Of the churches I’ve seen with outside governance, the Free Evangelical (E-Free) types, those who adhere to the Scriptures, seem to experience the best of a council sort of organization where there is a loose affiliation and a use of councils primarily for church discipline and guidance where the pastor has something to call upon for guidance. I won’t claim a comprehensive or deep knowledge of these types of churches: this is just my impression from experience.
The decision in Acts 15 was reached by consultation among apostles and elders of the church, relying upon the Scriptures (Amos 9:11-12). Matthew Henry’s Commentary deals with the reason for the decision being made and its result. I’m particularly drawn to the note that the churches were already apparently clear on the teaching but there was conflict from the outsiders who were obviously pressing authority from Judea or Jerusalem (Acts 15:1 and 5). The issue was a false teaching, for certain, but there was a second, equally bad issue of holding authority over churches.
The response from the churches when they received the letter undoubtedly came in part from the gracious message that did not assert ecclesiastical authority, rather voiced the beliefs of the apostles and elders from Jerusalem. There was no challenge issued or statement made regarding submission to any church or organization.
My note: I don’t see in Scripture any clear direction for ecclesiastical authority beyond independent local church governance. There is no communication in Revelation from Christ to the Council-Of-Elders-Over-The-United-Church, nor does Paul refer in his epistles to any body of leaders who are over multiple churches. Christ does not set up a council or presbytery or papal system in the Gospels (commonly Matt 16:18). Contrariwise, the example is always individual bodies of believers (the nation Israel, various churches in the N.T.) or the Church catholic (all believers combined). There doesn’t seem to be instance of a good case, in any case: The Pharisees don’t have a divine installation (or even a properly recorded historical origin) and the NT examples of teachers exerting global authority (with exception of the apostles) are all indications of false doctrine.
Cold Coffee and Flannel 