A Confessional Ecclesiastical Body: Reflections on the Sovereign Grace Polity Proposal

Having served as a copy-editor for the polity proposal which has just been posted on the SGM website, and having had innumerable conversations with the chair of the Polity Committee, I’ve had a chance to reflect upon it at length, prior to its publication. The prefatory material to the proposed Book of Church Order (especially I.B, “An Appeal for Ecclesiastical Union” and I.C, “Executive Summary”) already provide an overview and defense of the proposal. But I would like to say something about what I take to be its significance.

The handful of readers who have found their way to this blog before might wonder whether its authors are disappointed that apostles (whether official or merely “functional”—whatever that means) play no role whatsoever in it. For myself, I am not deeply disappointed. A polity without apostles is incomplete, but not fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, we have always defended the authority of regional assemblies of elders. In my mind, assemblies of elders are in one sense prior to apostles, since they are the ones who call apostles (Acts 13:1ff.) and to whom apostles are accountable (Acts 15). Just as it is possible for a local church to exist before it has elders (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5ff.), so also I think it is possible for an extra-local ecclesiastical body to exist without having apostles.

In any case, SG’s Presbyterian-type proposal embodies the central biblical principle that we apostolic defenders cared about the most: extra-local ecclesiastical unity. Our churches are not autonomous under this proposal, but are now responsible for one another’s welfare, holiness, orthodoxy, and mission. We are one corporate body: when one part suffers, the whole suffers, and when one rejoices, all rejoice with it. The implications of this are profound.

For one thing, Sovereign Grace—the Sovereign Grace churches—are not bound together by their common affiliation to a central ministry. No: the oaths expressed in the Partnership Agreement are not between a church “Sovereign Grace Ministries,” but between one church and all of the other Sovereign Grace churches.

The Sovereign Grace churches together constitute a unified ecclesiastical body which exists to glorify God as an expression of the bride of Christ. The churches share spiritual and material resources for the furtherance of our common mission, under the authority of a common government which enforces fidelity to our common confession of faith and standards of corporate holiness.

A local church joins itself to the Sovereign Grace body of churches when its elders, representing the church, enter into this partnership agreement with all the other Sovereign Grace churches. (From the Preamble to the Partnership Agreement, BCO p. 31).

Growing up for the past twenty years in Sovereign Grace, I thought this was true all along, but now it is made more explicit than ever. We are not bound simply to our leaders, like the spokes of a wheel. We are bound to each other. The churches in Souderton,  Durham, East Lansing, Westminster and Aurora are not loyal to some central corporate office: they are loyal to each other, striving together with a common confession in a common mission. My esteemed colleagues here at the “corporate headquarters” have never seen themselves as the head or center of our churches, but as the arm or servant of the churches. This polity says that more clearly and loudly than ever before. If the churches adopt this polity and the “corporate headquarters” (Sovereign Grace Ministries) were to shut down the next day, nothing substantial would have changed at all about the Sovereign Grace churches or their interrelationships. The churches would still be bound together in Christ in a single body by their common government, confession, mission, and mutual love; and they would carry on just as before.

And this brings us to another important point. In this polity, the Sovereign Grace churches are not delegating their mission to a “missions board” or parachurch organization. Our missiology is thus thoroughly grounded in our ecclesiology. For one thing, only the regional assemblies of elders can authorize church plants. For another thing, Sovereign Grace Ministries is entirely under the authority of the elders of the churches. (If you read my previous post on Thornwell, SGM becomes, in principle, like a set of “committees” rather than autonomous “boards”).

11. We affirm that the visible church is the only organization on earth commissioned and equipped by Christ to disciple the nations. No other para-church organization has been thus commissioned and equipped as the church of Jesus Christ.  Because the visible church should not substantially delegate its mission to another organization, Sovereign Grace Ministries is therefore organized as an instrument of the Sovereign Grace churches that helps to facilitate their cooperation in relationship and a common mission.  Its Governing Board, Leadership Team, and employees occupy no higher or different church office than any other elder. As men endowed with a range of gifts to provide leadership to the church in its broader mission, they are commissioned to such unique tasks by the Sovereign Grace elders, to whom they are ever accountable. They have no special authority in the churches, other than that which has been specifically delegated to them by the elders. (“General Principles,” BCO pp. 16-17).

A great deal of attention has been focused, whether positively or negatively, both within and without SG, on Sovereign Grace Ministries and its personnel. But that obsession is incredibly misguided, because the significance and value of SGM is utterly subservient to the value of the churches it serves. This polity radically focuses attention right back where it belongs: on the churches, on the content of the gospel they preach, on their accountability to and for one another, on their corporate holiness. And by focusing attention back on the church, we focus it back on Christ, the Head and Savior of the church.

Some churches may decide that they cannot submit to the authority structures articulated in this Book of Church Order, because their study of Scripture has led them to Independent convictions. That is respectable. But if you think that by rejecting this polity proposal, you are declaring your independence from Sovereign Grace Ministries, you are confused. SGM has no authority in this polity proposal. By rejecting this polity proposal, you are declaring your independence from the other SG churches and their elderships.

We are a small, weak, sinful little group of churches, and few if any of us are wise, mighty, or noble by the standards of the So-Called Evangelical World—let alone the real world. We are brought together by our confession, and wish to help each other stand firm in it, under our Lord, amid the fads, waves, and winds of doctrine within Christendom, the attacks of Satan, and the dark tides of a godless world that hates and needs Christ. Only the church has the Lord’s promise that it will stand against the gates of Hades—not seminaries, not mission boards, not associations for co-belligerent Christian activity. Whatever its flaws, this polity proposal gives our churches a place to stand, as the church, together.

Historical notes on the doctrine of the apostolate

     The fact that almost nobody in the history of the church has espoused an ongoing apostolate rightly gives us pause. However, we have to do more than poll the great theologians: we have to look at their arguments. After reviewing the main arguments from the history of Reformed theology, I’m persuaded that the supposed link between apostolicity and inspiration/canonicity is inconsistent with a truly Reformed doctrine of Scripture. If you believe that Scripture is self-authenticating, the whole motivation for finding a criterion of inspiration/canonicity drops.

 

Calvin on apostles

     I don’t pretend to give a full and balanced present of Calvin’s polity here, but I would like to point out that he (a) does not essentially link apostolicity to inspiration or resurrection-witness and therefore (b) is open to the possibility of contemporary apostles.

     Calvin describes the function of apostles as preaching the gospel far and wide, and planting churches. Speaking of apostles, Calvin writes “Their office was to spread the doctrine of the gospel throughout the whole world, to plant churches, and to erect the kingdom of Christ.”[1] And elsewhere:

     The nature of the apostles’ function is clear from this command: “Go, preach the gospel to every creature” [Mark 16:15]. No set limits are allotted to them, but the whole earth is assigned to them to bring into obedience to Christ, in order that by spreading the gospel wherever they can among the nations, they may raise up his Kingdom everywhere. Accordingly, Paul, in desiring to prove his apostleship, recalls that he did not gain any one  city for Christ but propagated the gospel far and wide, and did not put his hands to another man’s foundation but planted churches where the name of the Lord was unheard [Rom. 15:19-20]. Apostles, then, were sent out to lead the world back from rebellion to true obedience to God, and to establish his Kingdom everywhere by the preaching of the gospel, or, if you prefer, as the first builders of the church, to lay its foundations in all the world [I Cor. 3:10].[2]

     Calvin does not link apostolicity essentially with revelation-reception or seeing the risen Christ. This makes him open to the possibility of present-day apostles. Speaking of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers mentioned by Paul in Eph. 4:11, Calvin writes, “Of these only the last two have an ordinary office in the church; the Lord raised up the first three at the beginning of his Kingdom, and now and again revives them as the need of the times demands.”[3]

 

According to this interpretation (which seems to me to be in agreement with both the words and opinion of Paul), these three functions [apostle, prophet, evangelist] were not established in the church as permanent ones, but only for that  time during which churches were to be erected where none existed before, or where they were to be carried over from Moses to Christ. Still, I do not deny that the Lord has sometimes at a later period raised up apostles, or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own day. For there was need for such persons to lead the church back from the rebellion of Antichrist. Nonetheless, I call this office “extraordinary,” because in duly constituted churches it has no place.[4]

In a footnote to the sentence “Still, I do not deny…,” editor John T. McNeill says that Calvin is “Referring chiefly to Luther, whom he elsewhere often praises. Cf. Calvin’s Defensio adversus Pighium, where Luther is called ‘a distinguished apostle of Christ by whose ministry the light of the  gospel has  shone’ (CR VI. 250).”[5]

     For Calvin, it is the word, not an ecclesiastical office, which is inspired. One might expect Calvin  to polemicize against the papacy by announcing that since the apostolate has ceased, there can be no pope. But this is not how he argues. Instead he says

In truth, he [Paul] plainly rejects it [the papacy] as without foundation, when he ascribes superiority to Christ alone, and represents the apostles, and all the pastors, as indeed inferior to Him, but associated on an equal level with each other.[6]

The apostolate, biblically understood, was not a “temporary papacy” but in fact undermines the pretensions of the papacy. Apostles and pastors are “associated on an equal level with one another.” Calvin always stresses that it is the apostolic message, not the apostolic office, which is the foundation of the church (see e.g. his commentary on Eph. 2:20). Consistency with the divine word gives authority to ecclesiastical offices, but the divine word does not need to be validated by any ecclesiastical office, even the highest. I think that this is Calvin’s point in his commentary on Gal. 1:8:

[Paul] demands such unhesitating belief of his preaching, that he pronounces a curse on all who dared to contradict it.

     And here it is not a little remarkable, that he begins with himself; for thus he anticipates a slander with which his enemies would have loaded him. “You wish to have everything which comes from you received without hesitation, because it is your own.” To show that there is no foundation for such a statement, he instantly surrenders the right of advancing anything against his own doctrine. He claims no superiority, in this respect, over other men, but justly demands from all, equally with himself, subjection to the word of God.

     One might think that Calvin is only saying that Paul demands the reception of his message not because it is Paul’s, but because it is apostolic. This construal keeps the apostolic office per se infallible. But Calvin’s commentary on Gal. 2:11 overthrows this reading. Calvin emphasizes the fact that even Peter, an apostle, can be rightly rebuked. Consider what he makes of this fact: “This is another thunderbolt which strikes the Papacy of Rome. It exposes the impudent pretensions of the Roman Antichrist, who boasts that he is not bound to assign a reason, and sets at defiance the judgment of the whole Church.” Calvin’s point here is that if Peter, qua apostle, can be tested against the divine word and found wanting, then so too can any ecclesiastical official.

     In Institutes IV.viii, “The Power of the Church with Respect to Articles of Faith; and How in the Papacy, with Unbridled License, the Church has been Led to Corrupt All Purity of Doctrine,” Calvin stresses that OT prophets, priests, apostles, and pastors are all on a level with respect to their doctrinal authority: all are constrained to preach and teach only what they have received by revelation. Whether or not they are first recipients of a revelation (prophets and apostles), or secondary recipients who proclaim it (teachers and pastors) makes no difference as far as their inherent authority goes.  We cannot put implicit faith in any person, apostolic or otherwise:

As far as individual men are concerned, by the Lord, Paul was surely ordained apostle to the Corinthians, but he denies that he has dominion over their faith [II Cor. 1:24]. Now who would dare claim a dominion that Paul attests does not belong even to him? But if he had recognized such license to teach that a shepherd could by right require men to subscribe with unquestioning faith to all that he might teach—he would never have communicated to these same Corinthians the regulation that when two or three prophets speak “let the others discriminate. But if revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent.” [I Cor. 14:29-30 p.]. For he thus spared no one, and subjected the authority of all to the judgment of God’s Word.[7]

     One of the great principles of the Reformation is that the church is founded on the word, but the word is not founded on the church. The principle is epistemic: we recognize the true church as that which truly preaches the word, but our recognition of the divine word does not depend upon the authority of church councils or popes or even miracles or whatever. It seems to me that the later Reformed and evangelical tradition gives up this principle just to the extent that it makes apostolicity a criterion for inspiration and canonicity. The sanction of an apostle is neither necessary nor sufficient for recognizing the self-authenticating word as such. I think that this is what is behind Calvin’s uncoupling of apostolicity and the authority of the word.

 

After Calvin.

     Several prominent Reformed theologians after Calvin make the office of apostle (and of prophet, but I leave that aside now) inerrant, and yolk it to inspiration and canonicity.

     Zacharias Ursinus writes that “Apostles were ministers called immediately by Christ…having a similar testimony from God that they could not err in the doctrine.”[8]

      The ordering of chapters 23-25 of Book One of William Ames’ The Marrow of Theology are telling indicators of his theology of the apostolate.[9] Between chapter 23, “The Extraordinary Ministers of the Church,” and chapter 25, “Ordinary Ministers and Their Office in Preaching,” intervenes chapter 24, “Holy Scripture.”

     Extraordinary ministers “always have extraordinary gifts and assistance so that they minister without error,” and “the calling to such a ministry is direct.”[10] These ministers are organs of revelation.[11] Miracles are not necessary for the confirmation of their messages, nor are they sufficient,[12] but they are sometimes “added for more abundant confirmation.”[13]

33. This extraordinary ministry is either for the first instituting of a church, or for the special and extraordinary conservation of a church, or for the extraordinary restoring of a church which has collapsed.

34. The ministry of instituting a church is always accompanied by a testimony of miracles. Heb. 2:3, 4…”[14]

“37. The prophets, apostles, and evangelists were extraordinary ministers” but the Reformers were not, strictly speaking.[15]

     Naturally, chapter 24, “Holy Scripture,” begins by noting that extraordinary ministers were raised up for the purpose of delivering, orally and in writing, divine revelation.[16] “Only those could set down the rule of faith and conduct in writing who in that matter were free from all error because of the direct and infallible direction they had from God.”[17]

     Richard Baxter writes that it would be inconsistent with the faithfulness of God to allow apostles to err.[18]

Yet if any of the commissioners do err in their own particular conversations, [footnote: As Peter, Gal. ii. 12, 13] or in matters without the extent of their commission, this may consist with the faithfulness of God: God hath not promised them infallibility and perfection; the disgrace is their own: but if they should miscarry in that wherein they are sent to be a rule to others, the church would then have an imperfect rule, and the dishonor would redound to God.[19]

     Francis Turretin also develops this distinction between errors of doctrine (which are impossible for apostles) and errors in conduct (which are possible). “The apostles were infallible in faith, not in practice…The dissimulation and hypocrisy of Peter (Gal. 2:12) was a sin of life, not an error of faith.”[20]

     James Bannerman argues that the apostolic office was “extraordinary and temporary” rather than “ordinary and permanent.”[21] First, the apostles were appointed to be eye-witnesses of the resurrection, and there are of course no longer any such witnesses.[22] He cites here the criteria of Judas’ replacement (Acts 1:21ff.), and notes that Paul’s witnessing of the risen Christ receives great emphasis.[23] Second, the apostles were directly called by Christ himself.[24] Thirdly, the apostles were uniquely endowed with “supernatural power which they possessed to qualify them for their extraordinary mission.”[25] It was requisite that the apostles be inspired, “teachers of infallible truth,” and also that they have miraculous powers to accredit their teaching.[26] The gift of tongues was given to them so that they might speak the gospel to foreigners and thus to all nations.[27] “The powers of inspiration, of miracles, and of tongues are spoken of by Paul as ‘the signs of an apostle’…–marking out the authority and the special character of his office.”[28] The apostolic office exercised “an absolute authority” and was “invested with an infallible power to teach.”[29] Fourth, the apostles had a “universal commission and unlimited authority.”[30]

     B.B. Warfield states that the criterion for canonicity is “imposition by the apostles as ‘law’”.[31]

 

Reflections on the development of the Reformed doctrine of the apostolate.

     The main point I want to make here is that the Reformed stress on the inerrancy (and hence temporariness) of the apostolate seems to happen at the same time as the decline of the Reformed doctrine of the self-authentication of Scripture. If Scripture is self-authenticating, then you simply don’t need a criterion of inspiration/canonicity over and above Scripture itself. But if Scripture is not self-authenticating, then you do need such a criterion. And since early in church history, the church has latched onto apostolicity in one form or another as the criterion. The apostolic criterion of canonicity is most at home in an evidentialist apologetic. The evidentialist must provide a criterion for inspiration. Ultimately, that criterion will be miracles, but miracles will then be linked to the apostolate in some essential way such that the closing of the canon implies the cessation of miracles and the apostolate (and vice versa). Naturally, we find Norman Geisler saying that non-apostolic NT authors that “each of these had his message confirmed by the twelve apostles.”[32] And naturally, as we find the Reformed stressing the foundational significance of the indicia of Scripture rather than its autopistia, we find them stressing apostolicity as a criterion of canonicity. On the other hand, you will search in vain for the apostolic criterion in John Owen’s magnificent The Divine Original of Scripture, because Owen has such a robust notion of the self-authentication of Scripture.[33] He does not need a criterion of inspiration and canonicity, because Scripture is self-evidencing.

     The tension between the self-authentication of Scripture and the apostolicity-canonicity link is also evident in Herman Ridderbos.[34] Ridderbos argues that the NT does substantially support Warfield’s apostolic criterion.[35] However, Ridderbos acknowledges the impossibility of proving that all of the NT books meet the criterion. Ridderbos maintains the connection between inspiration and apostolicity, but inverts the evidentialist strategy. He argues that because the NT books are self-authenticating, we know that they are inspired; therefore, we can infer that all of the books are tied to an apostle.

     It may seem like Ridderbos’ approach accomplishes precious little, since it has no evidential value for those who do not already believe in the NT canon. But, if you could show on independent grounds that the apostolate has ceased, then you would have a fine argument for the closing of the canon of Scripture in the first century. You could rule out e.g. the Book of Mormon. In order to make this argument tight, you have to deny that the prophets of Eph. 2:20/3:5 are NT prophets, or else mount an independent argument for the cessation of inspired NT prophecy. The reason is that the prophets of Eph. 2:20/3:5 seem to be giving inspired revelation. If such prophets might still be operative, then it seems that there might still be inspired (and canonical) revelation forthcoming. But in any case, once you’ve already thrown yourself upon the self-authentication of Scripture (as Ridderbos rightly does), you don’t need another argument for the closing of the canon. No other self-authenticating, God-breathed word has come forth. This coheres with our general expectation that the climax of God’s redemptive acts and of his redemptive words should coincide.

     So, from a historical and systematic perspective, I think the essential link between apostolicity and inspiration/canonicity is useless, groundless, and artificial.

---

[1] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh, Scotland: Calvin Translation Society, n.d.; reprinted, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005) 279

[2] Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.3.4, 1056-57

[3] Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.3.4, 1056

[4] Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.3.4, 1057

[5] Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.3.4, 1057n4

[6] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh, Scotland: Calvin Translation Society, n.d.; reprinted, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005) 280-281

[7] 4.8.9, p. 1157.

[8] The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism , trans. G.W. Willard (Columbus, OH: Second American edition, 1852; reprinted, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, n.d.) 572

[9] Ed. John D. Eusden (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1997)

[10] 183 (point 25), 184 (point 27).

[11] 184 (points 29-30)

[12] 185 (point 35), citing Deut. 13:1-3 and Gal. 1:8.

[13] 184 (point 32).

[14] 184.

[15] 185

[16] 185 (point 1).

[17] 185-6 (point 2).

[18] Richard Baxter, The Saints’ Everlasting Rest (Fearns, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1998) 143.

[19] ibid.

[20] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, translated by George Musgrave Giger, edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992)  2.4.24, vol. 1 p. 69.

[21]James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 2 vols (New York: Westminster Publishing House, n.d.) 217

[22] 217-219.

[23] 218.

[24] 219-220

[25] 221.

[26] 221

[27] 221

[28] 221

[29] 224

[30] 222

[31] Warfield, “The Canon of the New Testament” in The Inspiration  and Authority of the Bible,415. Thus also Norman Geisler Christian Apologetics 369.

[32] Christian Apologetics 369. So also Warfield, “The Canon of the New Testament” 415. I can’t find any discussion of the canon in Classical Apologetics.

[33] John Owen, The Divine Original of the Scripture, in The Works of John Owen, vol. XVI, ed. William H. Goold (First published by Johnstone & Hunter, 1850-1853; reprinted, Carlisle, Penn.: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1968, 1995)

[34] Herman N. Ridderbos Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, translated by H. De Jongste, revised by Richard B. Gaffin Jr., 2^nd rev. ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1988). Wayne Grudem takes a similar approach in his Systematic Theology.

[35] Ridderbos does add his own important details. He argues that apostolic tradition can be farther removed from the actual person of the apostle than Warfield seems to envision.

Are all apostles eyewitnesses of the resurrection?

It’s often argued that no one can be an apostle unless they are eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to 1 Cor. 15:8, Paul was the last person to see the resurrected Christ. So if apostles must be eyewitnesses of the risen Christ, the apostolate has ceased.

Defenders usually bring forward two or three strong lines of support for the criterion that an apostle must have seen the resurrected Christ. First, there is the simple fact that at least the Twelve apostles and Paul did actually see the resurrected Christ. This in itself does not prove that post-resurrection appearance is a necessary characteristic of an apostle, but it might seem to point in that direction. Second, in a number of texts (notably 1 Cor. 9:1, 1 Cor. 15:5-7) Paul seems to bring up his seeing the resurrected Christ in defense of the legitimacy of his own apostleship. Third, there is a broad swath of teaching in NT according to which the key function of the Twelve apostles and Paul is to bear eyewitness testimony to the resurrected Christ. Prima facie these are weighty considerations in favor of the eyewitness criterion of apostolicity.

However, it does not seem to me that these texts are decisive. Paul does not go so far as to say that without the Damascus Road experience, he would not and could not be an apostle. In 1 Cor. 9:1, Paul’s rhetorical question “Am I not an apostle?” is immediately followed by “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” One might understandably think this indicates that Paul’s seeing the risen Jesus is a necessary or sufficient condition of apostolicity. But Paul also wants to defend Barnabus’ apostolic rights, and he does not bother to claim a resurrection appearance for Barnabus. This suggests that resurrection-appearances are not of essential importance to Paul’s conception of the nature and rights of apostleship.

Why then does Paul mention that he has seen the risen Christ, if he’s not giving a necessary condition for his apostolicity? Well, even if Paul’s seeing the risen Christ is not necessary for establishing his apostolicity per se, it does still strengthen his claims to having the apostolic rights which are in question. Paul is pointing out that not only is he an apostle, but he is one of the special subclass of apostles who has seen the risen Jesus. He has the same rights as “the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas.” Paul might be envisioning an interlocutor who concedes that Paul is an apostle, but denies that he has all the same rights as the more exalted apostles who had seen the risen Lord. So Paul’s answer to this interlocutor might have nothing to do with the criteria of apostleship per se, but the criteria for having the same rights as the Twelve.

Many have construed 1 Cor. 15:3-8 to mean that Paul was the last apostle to see the risen Christ and therefore the last person to be thus qualified to be an apostle. It’s hard for me to see how one gets all this out of the text, though. Paul just says Jesus appeared to all of the apostles who were around in the period before his ascension, and then that Jesus appeared to Paul last of all—i.e., last of all the apostles to whom Jesus in fact appeared, not last of all the apostles who would ever be. He does not say that a resurrection appearance is necessary for apostolicity. He does not say that he was the last person to be qualified to be an apostle. I just don’t see how the text is supposed to entail that.

The selection of Matthias in Acts 1 does not straightforwardly support the resurrection-appearance criteria either. Acts 1 stipulates that the candidates for Judas Iscariot’s replacement must have been with Christ throughout his earthly ministry, and Paul does not meet this criterion. It makes better sense to see these criteria as qualifications for a special subcategory of apostle, i.e., one of the Twelve.

Consider then the fact that it was absolutely essential to the apostolic ministry of the Twelve and Paul that they bore eyewitness testimony to the resurrection. I completely affirm the point. However, this does not in itself entail that no non-eyewitness can be an apostle. It is possible that Paul and the Twelve are unique among apostles both in their qualifications and in the focus of their ministry. In fact, based on Acts 1, it seems that the Twelve were a special class of apostles: they were those who had been with the Lord during his earthly ministry and seen him before his ascension. Paul was not in this class, but he was in the class of apostles who had seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9:1-3). Conceivably then, there were other apostles who had not seen the Lord. In fact this seems to be the case.

Paul refers to Apollos as an apostle in 1 Cor. 4:6, 9. But it is virtually impossible that Apollos was among those who saw the risen Lord before Paul’s conversion, and yet did not know of Christian baptism (see Acts 18:24-19:7)]. That’s the strongest counterevidence I know of for the eyewitness criterion of apostolicity.

It seems  impossible that Timothy saw the risen Christ prior to Paul’s conversion, so those who want to maintain the resurrection-appearance criteria have to argue that he is not referred to in 1 Thess. 2:7. It is possible that Timothy in fact is not being referred to here as an apostle. 1 Thess. 3:2 does say “we sent Timothy,” who is “our brother” which might imply that the “we” refers only to Paul and Silas—one cannot send oneself or be brother to oneself. Similarly, 3:6 says “Timothy has come to us.” So it seems that Timothy is not denoted by the first-person plural pronouns at least in 3:2, 6. However, it does not follow that “we” only refers to Paul and Silas in 2:7. Most of the epistle is written in the first-person plural, and it is jointly from “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy.” It seems most natural to assume that, unless context signifies otherwise, they are all three denoted by “we”-statements. It seems strained to think that because 3:2, 6 exclude Timothy, that every “we”-statement in the epistle excludes him also. But 2:7 has no other contextual clues, like 3:2, 6 do, which would lead us to think that Timothy is excluded from the “we.” That means that it is no more or less likely that he is excluded in this verse than in any other we-statement in the epistle. In view of the epistle’s beginning (“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy”), the case for exclusion from 2:7 seems weak.

The description of Timothy as “our brother and God’s coworker” in 3:2 does not obviously suggest a sub-apostolic status either. In 1 Cor. 3:9, Paul describes himself and Apollos as “God’s fellow workers” just in view of their apostolic activities.[1] These seem to be the only two places in Paul where people are referred to as God’s coworkers, though Paul frequently refers to people as his coworkers.[2] Possibly, Paul intends in 1 Thess. 3:2 not to signal Timothy’s difference from he and Silas (who are supposedly the apostles proper), but to signal Timothy’s full apostolic equality with them (despite his youth). Paul’s point in this passage is to stress how loathe they were to be apart from the Thessalonians, and how much he loves and values them. Perhaps Paul was concerned that the Thessalonians would not feel highly esteemed because Paul and Silas had sent back a mere youthful assistant to check on them; perhaps he calls Timothy “our brother and God’s coworker” in order to stress that Timothy is not just a sub-apostolic assistant, but on the contrary, he is as fully apostolic as Paul and Silas themselves. Of course, it’s also possible that “our brother and God’s coworker” denote Paul’s high valuation of Timothy in general, without implying anything one way or the other about Timothy’s apostleship.

However, in I and II Timothy, it looks like Timothy is functioning as an apostle. He selects elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7), ordains them (1 Tim. 5:22ff.), and adjudicates charges against them (1 Tim. 5:19-21). In 2 Corinthians, Paul speaks in the second-person plural on behalf of Timothy (1:1) and perhaps also Silas (1:19) throughout the bulk of the letter, including them in all of the descriptions of his mission and authority. All this makes it more natural to think Paul is calling Timothy an apostle in 1 Thess. 2:7. The main reason I can see for doubting Timothy’s apostolicity is the still-unproven assumption that apostles must be eyewitnesses of the resurrection. It is true that in three letters (2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Phm. 1:1), Paul is at pains to identify himself directly as an apostle while he refrains from doing the same for Timothy. But at best, this is an argument from silence. Other explanations for this phenomenon are conceivable, besides exclusion from the apostolic office. 1 and 2 Thessalonians begin with the egalitarian “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,” and Philippians opens with “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus.”

We have no direct evidence one way or another for whether Barnabus or Silas saw the resurrected Christ. It’s certainly possible they did.  But if we were not assuming that a resurrection-appearance is a criterion for being an apostle, we would not have any other reason to think that they experienced such appearances.

So, the evidence in favor of the resurrection-eyewitness criterion is not decisive, and the evidence against it is significant.

---

[1] sunergon tou Theou in 1 Th. 3:2, and 1 Cor. 3:9 says Theou gar esmen sunergoi, “for we are coworkers of God”.

[2] Rom. 16:3; 16:9; 16:21 (referring to Timothy); 2 Cor. 8:23 (referring to Titus); Phi. 2:25 (Epaphroditus); 4:3 (Clement et al); Col. 4:11; Phm. 1:1; 1:24.

Delegating the Church’s Mission? J.H. Thornwell and the Future of SGM

 

In a previous post I argued that authority in the church cannot be delegated to any person or organization unless God has given it to them expressly in Scripture. So, unless the Bible teaches that ecclesiastical bodies (see the post on Acts 15) or officers (i.e., apostles—see the “Writings” section) rightly exercise authority in and over local churches and their elderships, no one outside of a local church can have any authority in its affairs.

In this post I would like to suggest that the same principle applies to the mission of the church. The mission of the church should be carried out by the church in her visible, organized capacity. This mission should not be delegated to external agents or organizations. The mission of the church includes world evangelization and church planting, and all that those tasks might involve and require, such as ministerial training and publishing endeavors.

 

Thornwell and the mission boards

For my thoughts on this point I am indebted to James Henley Thornwell, who argued for this principle of ecclesiastical responsibility in his own Presbyterian denomination in the nineteenth century.[1] Thornwell’s denomination had earlier in the century begun to financially support an independent mission board which was also supported by other denominations. This arrangement ran into problems when disagreement arose over the theology of the missionaries that the board supported. So the Presbyterians formed their own mission board. This mission board was ultimately accountable to their General Assembly, but was given a wide sphere of independent authority in its operations.

But Thornwell argued against these “mission boards”—even the Presbyterian ones—altogether. He argued that even if the mission boards are ultimately accountable to a visible church, they themselves are not the church. By giving the mission board a wide sphere of independent authority to select and position missionaries and to dispose of the church’s money, the Presbyterian church had wrongly delegated away her own authority and responsibility.

Here are his central points in his own words. First he explains why the earlier independent mission boards had to be rejected:

In our recent contest, one great principle for which the Church was so zealously contending was that of ecclesiastical responsibility. The first enormous and commanding evil of the voluntary societies, which arrested attention and aroused opposition, was their absolute independence of the authority and jurisdiction of the Church. For years, consequently, her efforts were directed to the single point that the Church, as such, should have the control of all the spiritual enterprises of Christian benevolence.[2]

 

“[T]he great principle [is] that it is the duty of the Church, as such, in her ecclesiastical capacity, to conduct every department of the work which the Saviour has committed to her.”[3]

Then he argues that in order to be consistent with this great principle, even the latter variety of mission board—those that are ultimately but only distantly accountable to the visible church—has to be eliminated.

The principle is, that these enterprises must be carried on by the Church as a visible, organized body; the fact is, that they are conducted by institutions appointed by the Church, and not by the Church in her ecclesiastical capacity.[4]

It is not enough for the church to appoint some other institution, even one which is ultimately accountable to her, to carry out missionary activity on her behalf. The visible, organized church as such ought to carry out the mission directly.

Thornwell makes an important distinction between boards and committees. He rejects mission boards, but supports mission committees. The difference between boards and committees is that committees simply carry out the directions of church courts and church officers. But Boards have an independent sphere of authority.

Committees are usually appointed for one of two purposes—either to prepare and arrange business for the body which appoints them, or to execute some specific trust by the order and direction of the body to which they are responsible.[5]

The Boards, on the other hand,

are confidential agents, acting upon their own suggestions and their own views of expediency and duty, without pretending to wait for positive orders from the General Assembly. They are clothed with plenary power to act and do as to them shall seem most advisable in all matters embraced in the general subject entrusted to their care.[6]

Just because a Board is appointed by church officers does not make the Board Members per se church officers, nor does it make the Board into an ecclesiastical body comparable to an eldership or a church council.[7] Even if Board Members happen to be elders themselves, this is incidental to the unique authority and prerogatives that they possess as Board Members. And the church cannot delegate her work to such a Board.

[The church] has no right to entrust her own peculiar functions to any agent, no matter

how closely connected with herself. The duties of the Church are duties which rest upon her by the authority of God. He has given her the organization which she possesses for the purpose of discharging these duties. She can, therefore, no more throw them off upon others, than a man can delegate to his neighbor the care of his own family and abandon himself to idleness and ease.[8]

 

To our minds it is clear that our Saviour constituted His Church with a special reference to Missionary operations, and we shall be slow to believe that the most successful method of conducting them was never discovered until eighteen centuries after His ascension.[9]

According to Thornwell, the real question at issue is this:

Is the Church adequately organized to discharge all the duties which Christ, her glorious Head and King, demands at her hands; or is she at liberty to supply the defects of her Constitution from the resources of her own wisdom? In other words, Is the Church simply a servant of Christ, bound to do what she is commanded, and as she is commanded, acting in all respects according to orders; or is she a confidential agent, instructed only as to the ends to be accomplished, and left to invent the means for herself?[10]

And again, “…no institutions can address themselves to the faith of God’s people but those which are founded upon God’s Word.”[11]

 

Practical implications for independent churches and parachurch organizations

At present, I’m persuaded by Thornwell’s principle of ecclesiological responsibility. Admittedly I hold his position loosely, not dogmatically, because he appeals to conceptual principles which are not immediately demonstrable from Scripture (take for example Thornwell’s critical distinction between a “board” and a “committee”). That said, what are the practical implications of Thornwell’s notion of ecclesiological responsibility?

To begin with, Thornwell’s principle has major consequences for the way we think of parachurch ministries. The whole evangelical landscape is populated by parachurch institutions and associations that carry out component parts of the church’s mission. Seminaries (those which are independent of the jurisdiction of any particular church) are another prime example. I owe a profound personal debt to my alma mater Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and so do you: WTS has been an anchor of Reformed orthodoxy in the world since 1929. If you’re going to go to seminary, WTS in Philadelphia is my favorite. But if Thornwell’s principle is correct, then such institutions ought to be subsumed under the immediate jurisdiction of the church and her officers, or else the church should resume her own responsibilities in such a way that she no longer depends upon parachurch institutions like WTS.

Parachurch institutions often do magnificent work for the Lord and for the church. I love and support WTS and many other parachurch institutions, and do not desire their demise. In the current state of the world, so many churches depend upon them for so many critical functions that it would be foolish to suddenly try to annihilate them all. But, if Thornwell’s principles are correct, then the church ought to strive to carry out all aspects of her mission herself. That should be our goal and ideal, even if it is only gradually realized.

Secondly, it seems to me that if you agree with Thornwell that the church cannot delegate her mission to any other organization, you will have to reject the ecclesiology of Independency. According to Independency, the visible churches are identical with local congregations. There is no such thing as a single visible church comprised of multiple congregations. If Independency is the case, and if you agree with Thornwell that the visible church cannot delegate her missionary activities, then each local congregation must carry out its own missions operations by itself. But this practically debilitates most large-scale mission work, which has to be carried out through the cooperative efforts and resources of many congregations. This is why it seems to me that, for example, the Southern Baptists (who are independent congregationalists) must reject Thornwell’s principle. Their International Mission Board, as I understand it, is precisely the sort of organization Thornwell protests against. It is not under the authority of any particular local church, nor is it under the authority of something like “Southern Baptist Church in America.” There is no such thing as a single, unified Southern Baptist Church in America, because Southern Baptist churches are independent. I take it that’s why they call the aggregate of Southern Baptist churches the Southern Baptist Convention.

I’m not picking on our highly esteemed brethren in the SBC or the IMB in particular. I thank God for their gospel labors and respect the consistency of their ecclesiological position. I’m simply using them as an example. If Independency is the case, then either single congregations must take up all the tasks requisite to the execution of the mission, or if multiple churches cooperate, it will necessarily be by way of parachurch associations and organizations—Boards, in Thornwell’s sense of the word. However, if a single visible church can be comprised of many congregations (e.g., the Presbyterian Church in America), then a visible church as such, in her organized, visible capacity, can carry out large-scale tasks that are part of the church’s mission. In other words, if Independency is the case, the churches will probably always depend upon the parachurch. To me, this is an argument against Independency.

 

Practical Implications for SGM.

To apply these principles briefly to SGM:

First, if the Sovereign Grace churches declare themselves ultimately independent, then SGM itself is basically the equivalent of the Southern Baptist Convention’s IMB.  SGM will be a kind of parachurch entity.

Secondly, if Thornwell’s principles are right, and if the Sovereign Grace churches reject independency and declare themselves as a unified ecclesiastical body, then the SGM ought to do nothing more than carry out the directives of church courts and church officers who are functioning in their God-ordained roles. SGM ought to be an organ and instrument of a visible church (The Sovereign Grace Church?). How this might happen is an open question.

Thirdly, the office of apostle is the biblical church office designed to spearhead the church’s mission, and invested with the authority to do so. Any proposed ecclesiology which requires us to invent new offices and new institutions in order to carry out the church’s mission ought to be questioned. It seems to me that Independency does require us to invent new mission-related offices and institutions. As a matter of fact, the Bible gives us a church office specifically charged with conducting missions and church planting: the office of apostle. The rejection of this office, it seems to me, only hinders and complicates the church’s ability to carry out her mission.

---

[1] See The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Vol. IV: Ecclesiastical (Carlisle, Penn.: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) 143-296. I earnestly hope that people will read and reckon with Thornwell. It should go without saying that I don’t endorse everything that Thornwell ever wrote—not even on this subject. For starters, I’m not a Presbyterian.

[2] 146

[3] 158

[4] 147

[5] 150

[6] 151

[7] 159-160

[8] 160-161

[9] 164

[10] 192

[11] 175

SGM Polity, the Cessation of the Apostolate, and the Authority Question in our Local Churches

Historically, the Sovereign Grace churches have affirmed the continuation of the office of apostle. We thought of the leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries as apostles. This justified the existence and activities of SGM. Like the apostles in the NT, SGM’s leaders were financially supported by the local churches that they served, they directed church planting, and they had authority to ordain, install, and remove elders in local churches. Their teaching ministry guided the churches. Practices and concepts of apostolic ministry may have varied somewhat from region to region and over time, but something along these lines constituted the self-understanding of SGM and the member churches.
In 2010, SGM began to teach the cessation of apostles; on this new view, no one after the first generation of the Christian church has occupied the office of apostle. My point here is not to defend or criticize the apostolate as a contemporary office, or SGM’s historic practice of apostolic ministry. What I want to do here is to briefly explain what questions the abandonment of the apostolic office has raised for the Sovereign Grace churches.
The rejection of the continuation of the apostolic office raises critical questions of authority and accountability in the local churches. Historically, apostolic representatives of SGM bore the responsibility for censuring and even removing errant pastors (cf. 1 Tim. 5:19-21). If the office of apostle has ceased, then the representatives of SGM no longer have any basis for exercising authority in the local churches.
The only kind of “authority” they can legitimately claim to have is the “authority” of wise counselors. Local pastoral teams may respect the advice of the representatives of SGM and are often apt to follow it. But this is not real ecclesiastical authority worthy of the name. We respect the advice of John Calvin, John Piper, and a lot of other less famous friends, and are apt to follow their advice too. But it makes no sense to say that mere advisors have any authority in our churches. In fact it is dangerous to do so. In the case of real, official authority (think here of the God-given authority of husbands, parents, and magistrates), we are conscience-bound to defer to those who possess it unless such deference obviously entails disobedience to God. Real authority figures bear a correlative responsibility for their decisions. If we say that our wise friends have authority over us, then we are saying that we are conscience-bound to do what they say, and we are also saying that they bear responsibility for the actions we undertake in obedience to them. But the mere wise friends in our life who give us counsel would obviously recoil in horror if they thought we regarded them as authoritative and responsible in this way. A local pastoral team that tried to hold its mere wise advisors responsible for critical decisions in the life of the church would be abdicating its own authority, shirking its own God-given responsibilities, and wrongly shifting the blame (or praise) for its own actions to innocent parties.
Some people might propose that while authority and responsibility in the church ultimately and originally rests with each local church, these churches can voluntarily delegate authority to other people or organizations. On this view, churches can sign a membership agreement with SGM and confer upon SGM and its representatives authority to ordain and remove pastors in their local church, or exercise some degree of government in other ways. It seems to me that such delegation of authority and responsibility is impossible. Husbands and parents cannot delegate their authority/responsibility in the home to family life counselors, and government officials cannot delegate authority/responsibility in the state to consulting agencies. They might pretend to do so, and even think that they have done so, but God has given authority and responsibility to husbands, parents and to magistrates. He will not recognize their pretended contractual delegation of authority. God will continue to hold husbands, parents, and magistrates responsible for what happens in their respective spheres. The same goes in the church. If God has given ecclesiastical authority ultimately and originally to the elderships of local churches, then local churches cannot delegate away their authority and responsibility to someone else, no matter how wise and godly they may be. And why would we want to? The authority structures God has actually ordained for the churches and revealed in the Scriptures must be completely sufficient for all that he has called the churches to be and do.
So SGM cannot continue to relate to the local churches in the same way as it did before the rejection of the apostolic office. SGM presently has no basis for exercising any authority in local churches. If there is no extralocal authority over the local church, then local elderships are either (a) ultimately under the authority of their own congregations, or (b) under no authority but their own. For those of us who find both options untenable, the question of authority and accountability is acute.
We here at Our Back Pages believe in two forms of extralocal authority which we think are biblical. First, we affirm the ongoing office of apostle. Second, we believe in the authority of regional assemblies of elders and apostles. We think that apostles are ultimately accountable to these general assemblies. We don’t hold these positions because there are particular people that we want to wield apostolic authority over the Sovereign Grace churches. We’re not sure who else (if anyone) even believes in the office of apostle; we do not want anyone to occupy an office that they do not believe exists; and we do not want anyone to exercise prerogatives that belong to an office that they do not occupy. What we do hope is that, if our position is biblical, the Sovereign Grace churches will raise up and identify the apostles that the Lord Jesus have given to our churches for the purposes of extralocal government and the advancement of our mission (Eph. 4:7-11). Whether or not this polity is compatible with the present or historic practice of SGM is completely secondary to us. What matters preeminently is whether or not the Bible teaches it. And since we are aware of the novelty of our polity proposal, we sincerely and humbly invite those who think we have erred to help us to understand the Scriptures more accurately.

Should Some Elders be Unpaid?

When considering how local church pastoral teams should be ordered, one question that has to be considered is: Should all the pastors receive a salary for their work?  The same issue could be raised by another question: Wouldn’t it be better if some of the elders were not “paid elders?”  For the purposes of my brief discussion here, I will assume that all are in agreement that all elders are pastors and that all pastors are elders.

To answer this, as in all polity matters, we must turn to Holy Scripture for the answer.  Paul deals with this directly in 1 Timothy 5:17-18:

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. ¹⁸ For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

While elders have the same responsibilities, apparently Paul is aware that elders are not all equally gifted so he makes the point that those that are particularly effective should be compensated at a higher level.  It is also obvious that the preaching and teaching is a priority in the local church and that those who do it should be rewarded financially.  We know this from other places in the NT (Gal. 6:6; 1 Cor. 9:11).  Further, the NT knows no elder who is not a teacher (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9).  We will deal with the so-called ruling elder vs. teaching elder in a future post.

It was Paul’s desire that pastors be financially supported, if at all possible, by the congregations they served.  Granted that there may be small churches which are not able to fully financially support a pastor.  There is nothing that forbids an elder working another job if necessitated.  At one time, I was an elder in a local church for 3 years without ever receiving compensation.  Then for a couple of years I received a small stipend in order to offset my increased time away from my other job.  While we endured this as a church, it was less than ideal.  In fact, it became intolerable and unacceptable once the church was able to support me.  I lived through what it meant to be “muzzled.”  Having the responsibility to teach and care for the flock of God means a lot more than showing up at an elders meeting once a week.  If a man is ordained as a pastor, he must be able to fully execute his responsibilities if at all possible.  To fail to support him financially is “muzzling the ox” and it is a bad thing, according to Paul.  It means appointing him to do the work and then failing to make it possible for him to do it.

Nowhere in Scripture is it said that it would be better to not support an elder.  It is an unknown concept, biblically speaking.  1 Corinthians 9 expounds upon this notion that muzzling the ox on the part of the church is wrong.

⁸Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? ⁹ For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? ¹⁰ Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. ¹¹ If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? ¹² If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul is applying this biblical truth to his and Barnabas’ office as apostles, but his argument is applicable to local pastors as well since Paul has used it in the same manner in 1 Timothy 5.

A word must be said on Paul’s decision to work at his “tent making” business when he travelled to preach the gospel and plant churches.  Paul gives his reasons in 1 Corinthians 9:12.

“…Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.

Paul realized that when evangelizing, asking new Christians to give him money could have raised suspicions and hence “put an obstacle in the way of the gospel.”  But Paul makes it clear that just because he laid down his right to compensation does not mean it ceased to be his right. Paul is willing to accommodate “the weak” for the sake of the gospel (9:19-23), but at most these concessions are temporary and in order to facilitate growth into a maturity where the concessions are no longer needed. It is quite obvious that the church at Philippi, which supported Paul so that he could preach the gospel to the Corinthians free of charge, is much more mature and commendable on this score than the Corinthian church (Phil. 4:15-16; cf. 2 Cor. 11:7-9). 1 Cor. 9 was written as a defense for the Corinthian obligation to support those who teach and lead in the local church.  Paul’s example could never be made binding on a local elder because the situations are very different.  Paul was travelling in order to preach the gospel to those who had never heard it and to plant churches in new territories.  The local elder has a much different ministry and the issues that would possibly make it wiser for him not to accept financial support are not present.

Paul goes on to say that in the NT church, the precedent of the OT is relevant and binding.  He specifically uses the example of those who served in the temple:

“Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? ¹⁴ In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.”  1 Corinthians 9:13-14

Paul clearly states that the Lord has “commanded” this arrangement.  It is consistent with what Paul told Timothy:

“No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. ⁵ An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. ⁶ It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops. ⁷ Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” 2 Timothy 2:4-7

Paul’s use of the OT here as authoritative is significant.  Remember the arrangement in the OT was that 11 tribes worked and gave money in order to support the remaining tribe of Levi.  Nowhere in the OT is it said to be a good thing for the Levites to go to work.  In fact, Israel was rebuked when the Levites had to work in order to support themselves.  Now, the NT church does not have a separate class of “priests” since all Christians are priests (Rev. 1:6).  Paul is not using the OT to say that.  What he is saying is that it is appropriate to use the OT support of priests to justify the financial support of those who are called to labor in the word and doctrine, such as apostles and elders.

Finally, a word must be said about the motive of the doctrine of the “muzzled ox.”  I have heard it suggested that muzzling some of the oxen is a good “check and balance” to the unmuzzled oxen.  While the concept of balance of power is a good thing when it comes to civil government, the Scriptures never teach that unpaid elders should be appointed because they “balance” the power of the paid elders.   Actually it is the doctrine of plurality of elders given with accountability to apostolic men that is the Bible’s answer to the pertinent issues.  The Bible is clear:  It is better for the ox to be unmuzzled than muzzled.

The Priesthood of All Believers

A reader submitted a friendly thought to the blog. I believe the comments he sights are a paraphrase of a Catholic document about the priesthood of all believers. Here is what he wrote with my thoughts following it:

I recently read a post that contained another denominations statement of the role of all believers and clergy in the church. I changed a few words to better match our vocabulary, doctrine and practices. I was interested in others’ thoughts on it. With my changes it reads:

Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.”  The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly.  The faithful exercise their believing priesthood through their participation, each according to his own gifting, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king.  Through the sacrament of Baptism and practice of local church membership the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”

The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops [apostles/team leaders] and pastors, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.  In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of saving grace –a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood [apostles/pastors] is at the service of the common priesthood.  It is directed at the unfolding of the saving grace of all Christians.  The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church.  For this reason it is transmitted by its own practice, the practice of Ordination.

It sounds like you are using the concept of a “priesthood of all believers” as one to organize the church’s members and its leaders, each of them functioning as priests in different but related ways.

I’m not sure the Reformers would see the “priesthood of all believers” in this way. Instead Luther used it–or the idea, at least–as a way to think of our free access to Christ through the gospel. I believe that is what we see in the New Testament.

The unique function of the priests in the Old Testament was in offering sacrifices, but their unique calling was also in an experience of the presence of God that was not the universal one of the people of God.

Christ is called throughout the book of Hebrews our “great high priest” (4:14-16; 10:19-25) who offers the sacrifices better than the blood of bulls and goats. He thus accomplished what the Old Testament priests never could: an “eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). His priesthood is unique and his mediation is perfect. No human and no human act could ever add to what he accomplished.

The redemption that Christ accomplishes makes forever null and void any offering of a so-called priest. Christ fulfills the first part of the Old Testament priesthood.

The second element of their priesthood was our ability to enter the presence of Christ. Here, too, the book of Hebrews looks to Christ as the fulfillment of what “bulls and goats” could never do. The result of his work is that wretched sinners like us can “have confidence to enter the holy places” (Heb. 10:19-25). The way is open for us to have abiding, continual, fearless, confident access to God–something no Old Testament high priest ever dreamed possible. Yet, through the priesthood of Christ we can.

So, if these two aspects of the OT priesthood are fulfilled in Christ–and only in Christ, what then is left of the OT priesthood? The NT adopts much priestly language in areas like sacrificial living: “a fragrant aroma, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God” (Phil. 4:18) is what Paul calls the offering of the Philippians. Paul speaks of his own life as being “poured out as a drink offering” (2 Tim. 4:6). Peter calls us a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9) that offers “spiritual sacrifices” through Christ (1 Peter 2:5).

In other words, what is radical about the New Testament organization of the church is that it explicitly rejects any talk of “priests” and takes over a secular term “apostle,” tweaks a common understanding of “pastor” (the term is “shepherd” in the Greek), gives a wholesale alteration to the OT “elder,” and brings out an entirely new understanding of a “servant” in the office of deacon. Thus, even the terminology tells us that God is doing something new with the church that differs from the OT priesthood and theocracy.

All of this makes me think we are on solid ground when we think of the “priesthood of all believers” in terms of free access to God, but that ground gets shaky when we begin to use it as a concept to organize the church.

What do you think?

Daniel