Credo Ut Intelligam

These views will only work if Congregationalism is a legitimate church polity. Unlike the other major forms of church polity (Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism), Congregationalism is premised on the notion that the spiritual authority of a church has been given to the congregation. Either this notion is true or it is not. If it is not, then Congregationalism itself is not a legitimate option. If it is, then Congregationlism is the only legitimate option. Other forms of church polity, if they were to be practiced, would have to be stripped of their substance. They are defined as either rule by bishops or rule by elders. The "rule" here has a spiritual, and not just a pragmatic, significance. It is the exercise of the authoriy of the keys. Congregationalism, if it is legitimate polity, must be jure divino.

If Congregationalism is correct, then the offices of the church can have nothing more than a practical significance. If it is not, then these offices have nothing less than a spiritual significance. In this case, the officers derive their authority from, and are the representatives of, Christ. If their office is not spiritually significant, then neither is that of Christ.

I pause here to state that I believe in jure divino Presbyterianism. I will not, at this time, state my objections to Episcopalianism, since that is not the object of this response. I mention this now because it's easier to argue against Congregationalist presuppositions if I'm not also hypothetically defending a position I don't believe in.

As to your own defenses of your position, I do not find them compelling. I have no objection to your arguments from practicality: the church offices can be both spiritual and practical. Let's get straight to your objection to the WCF concerning the dispensing of the sacraments.

You offer a negative argument: the Bible does not say that it is a sin [for a layman to dispense the sacraments]. This is simplistic. I will agree that no particular text bars laymen from dispensing the sacraments. However, the significance of this silence depends upon which form of church polity is presupposed. If Congregationalism, then the silence implies just what you say it does. If Presbyterianism, then the minister of the Word, lawfully ordained, stands in the place of Christ. No text barring laymen from dispensing the sacraments is needed.

Your appeal to the priesthood of the believer is confusing the objective history of salvation with the subjective order of salvation. Peter does call us a royal priesthood, but he does not say this to distinguish the NT church from the OT church. He is, in fact, quoting Exodus 19:6, which specifically called ancient Israel a kingdom of priests. I will consider the possibility of a conflict with the WCF at this point if you can point out what conflict exists in the OT.

The status of Israel as a kingdom of priests did not automatically apply to every individual. The previous verse conditions it upon obeying God's voice and keeping his covenant. This is a description of saved Israelites. The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer was true even then. It was a point of the order of salvation that was based upon the assumption that the history of salvation would finally be fulfilled in Christ. The ancient Israelites had the same spiritual access to the most holy place that we do. They were barred from the typical most holy place because that point in redemptive history had not yet come in which Christ entered the antitypical most holy place with his own blood. Now that Christ has entered into the antitypical most place, we are neither barred from nor allowed into the typical most holy place. It no longer exists.

That the OT priests served a typical function is not in dispute. But it was more than this. So, was it typical/practical, or was it typical/minister of Christ? If the former, then the abolition of the typical implies the lifting of any ban upon laymen assuming ministerial functions. If the latter, then the implication is not true. The substance and exclusivity of ministerial rights would be the same now as it was then.

The desciption of the early church in Jerusalem is not intended as a model. Having everything in common was a necessity of their particular situation. The church in Jerusalem, composed mainly of Jewish Christians, had been ostracized from the rest of society. They were unable to do any business in the secular community. The resulting poverty forced them into communal living. That this was not a solution to their problem is seen when Paul has to take up offerings from other churches in order to support them.

I will agree that the church's ministry of mercy existed before there were deacons. And the creation of the deaconate did solve a practical difficulty. Nevertheless, it does not follow from this that the deaconate was a practical solution to the problem. It was an authoritative solution. The apostles created a church office that had the authority to settle the issue. The only practical solution was to the apostles themselves (and, by extension, the elders): they would not be required to forsake the Word of God.

Even if you were right, though, the practical nature of the deaconate would say nothing about the spiritual authority of the elders. The question is now whether elders have spiritual authority. And this is a matter of church polity. Implicit within congregationalism is the idea of the independent local church. The church is primarily defined as the gathered community of believers. The authority comes from Christ through the congregation. It is limited to that congregation. There would be no practical reason why anyone outside of the local congregation should be making authoritative pronouncements. In other words, there would be no practical reason to have a presbytery.

When there is a presbytery, a group of elders, most of whom are not from my local congregation, are able to make authoritative decisions that may affect the doctrine and practice of my local congregation. The legitimacy of a presbytery will determine whether the offices of the church are spiritually authoritative or whether they are just practically expedient. For this, I direct your attention to Acts 15, in which the apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem to decide on a point of doctrine. These decrees were then delivered to the people to obey (Acts 16:4). Both the offices of apostle and elder were spiritually significant and authoritative. That the one office is no longer extant does not negate this attribute in the other.

The offices of the church do no exist merely as practical expressions of the people's authority or as conduits for the expression of spiritual gifts. Rather, the officers themselves are the gifts given by Christ to build up the church (Ephesians 4:11,12). The officers of the church represent Christ to the church. As such, they speak and act with the authority of Christ; consequently, their office holds a spiritual significance. The sacraments are true means of grace instituted by Christ. Only he may dispense them through his representatives. Both Congregationalists and Presbyterians are agreed on this point. The question is this: who represents Christ? The people or the elders? Scripture, I believe, teaches the latter.

I can't sympathize much with the notion of primitive Christianity, since I believe it to be based on a faulty understanding of the text. However, I do sympathize with the notion of the church as a living organism. Yet I do not believe that viewing the church as an institution needs to distract us from this. There are, indeed, lifeless ecclesiastical institutions. But they are not lifeless because they are institutions. They are lifeless because they have been cut off from the head, which is Christ. The spiritual significance of church offices, and, with this, the institutional form of the church are not something superimposed in opposition to the living body. Rather, the very form of the church flows out of the life of the church. The spiritual authority of church officers are a reflection of the rule and nurture of Christ over his people.

Hi Chris,

Concerning the eldership in specific, even if one disputes continuity between the OT priesthood and eldership, Peter (spec. 1 Pet. 5) makes a reasonably clear continuum between the apostolate and the elders. In other words, the Protestant brand of apostolic succession are the elders, and the apostles are the representatives of Jesus, Himself, in an official capacity that not all believers are.

I would be interested to see you interact with that chain, especially in light of the OT concept (I won't say office at that point, but it virtually is an office in the OT) of Shepherd, fulfilled in Christ as the Good Shepherd, passed on to Peter ("Feed my sheep"), passed on to the elders ("Shepherd the flock of God among you.").

If the eldership are the administrative representatives of Christ in a similar manner as the apostles, that would lend more credibility to the position that elders serve the Supper to the people of God, as Christ did Himself. In the OPC, the Book of Church Order reflects this in its liturgy concerning the Lord's Supper.

I have no time, but I'd like to reiterate Kevin's point. God does not give gifts to individuals so that they can be office bearers. Rather, God gives the offices as gifts to the Church.

Phil, do you think Peter is talking about ordained presbyters only? Well, he follows it up by saying, “Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older” which makes me think that the contrast in this passage is not between ordained presbyters and laymen, but between elders and young men. I agree that elders (those who are mature both in years and in the Spirit) have a special role to play in shepherding the flock. Let that role be as exalted as you wish, it goes no distance towards establishing a special role for officially ordained presbyters as distinct from mere elders.

Apologies to Phil for stealing this question. Even if it were possible to demonstrate that 1 Peter 5 is talking about young men and their elders, with no special office in mind, there would still be the matter of other scripture passages. 1 Timothy 3 speaks of the qualifications for those men who desire the office of a bishop. The passage is clear; there is no way to make it say, "If any man wants to be old."

While it is certainly true that we should respect those who are older than us, I don't believe that Peter has this specifically in mind. He is talking about ordained elders. The NIV is a bit too interpretive in its rendition of v. 5. The ESV, a more literal translation, reads, "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders." This allows for the interpretation offered by the NIV, but it also leaves open another possibility. The term "younger" is not referring to men of few birthdays, but to those church members who, regardless of age, are subject to the rule of the elders. There is a similar use of the word in Luke 22:25,26, "And he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.'"

First off, the word used for elders in 1 Pet. 5 is "presbyturos," so you'd have to argue that word just (or can, at least) designates older men in general, which is possible I suppose, but it seems unlikely to me, esp. given the passage Kevin brought up. It seems odd to me that the apostle would specify qualifications for being an "older guy," although I certainly grant you that many of those qualifications ought to be found in mature Christians. One that sticks out is the requirement "able to teach," which once again seems to indicate this is not referring to all the older Christians in general.

There does seem to be some historical overlap between this office and being older, though. For example, in the OT, the elders are most likely older men (although, it doesn't exactly say that), but that doesn't mean that there is no NT ordained office.

I'm still interested in seeing you interact with the OT roots of this concept. We have the shepherds of Israel in the OT clearly referring to Israel's leaders. We have Christ as the Good Shepherd. We have Jesus passing this Shepherdship to Peter. Peter passes this Shepherdship to the elders. Could he be passing this leadership to all the older folks in the Church generically? Possibly, but given the list of qualifications offered by Paul, it seems less likely to me.

Paul instructs Timothy not to let people despise him because of his youth, yet Timothy is clearly a/the leader in his congregation. When we read the list of qualifications for elders and deacons, we are reading Timothy's mail, presumably so Timothy could select good elders and deacons.

To sum up, I don't think your view is clearly erroneous anywhere, but it seems like a less likely interpretation given all the data. Could you perhaps show some places that offer positive support for your view?

I misspoke. I do think there is a distinction between old guys and those old guys who are specially gifted with spiritual leadership. But this gift can be exercised without the office. The office facilitates the gift and the role of a presbyter derives whatever spiritual significance it has not from its official status but from the gift that the person who holds that office has been given. I tried to get this accross in my post, but I realize that in my response to your comment, my language was misleading.

(Of course there is a NT office of elder: Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5. The question is whether that offfice is spiritually significant as such--as an office)

Much of what you said still applies. However, I think it's unfair to expect me to offer the kind of support you are looking for, just as it is unfair for baptists to expect us to produce a passage in which a child is explicitly said to be baptized. If your view is correct, one would expect that the NT, and especially the book of acts would say something about the spiritual significance of the office of elder. After all, the OT is quite explicit about the priesthood, and the NT, including the book of Acts, is quite explicit about the office of apostle. But as far as I can see, the book of acts doesn't even mention the creation of the office. The first time elders are mentioned is in ch 11, and it's just a passing remark. Later you have Paul and Barnabas ordaining elders. But nothing to suggest that ordination itself has any spiritual significance. Luke is much more explicit about the office of deacon than he is about the office of elder. On the other hand, if my view is correct, what would you expect the book of Acts to look like? I think you would expect to see just the silence on this issue that you do see.

If there's to be any positive evidence, it will be incidental. And here it is:
Acts 6 names the Seven in this order: Steven, Philip, and the rest. Then it talks about Steven, then it talks about Philip. We have every reason to think the Philip in ch 8 is the deacon mentioned in 6. But Philip baptized. Hence it is not a sin for a non-elder to dispense the sacraments.

The analogy to an explicit paedobaptist prooftext is not going to work. The reason that we can get away with offering no such text is that we affirm the continuity between the testaments. Infant baptism existed in the OT, although in a different form (circumcision). Likewise, the offices of elder, both ruling and teaching, existed in the OT. There is no reason for Luke to record their creation; he only need mention them.

On the issue of spiritual significance, what do you mean by this? The record of Acts 15 indicates that elders shared in the responsibility of making a decision that was binding on the entire church. Furthermore, it appears that James was the presiding officer. He was not an apostle, but an elder (the Apostle James had been martyred three chapters back). The ability to make such decisions for the church is, to me, spiritually significant. Yet, this ability requires some measure of authority, which can only be granted by the endowment of an office. If an elder is nothing more than a spiritually gifted man, and ordination nothing more than the facilitation of the exercise of this gift, then the gift carries no authority; it's just a really good suggestion. The authority to rule the church is spiritually significant. This authority comes only by means of ordination to an office.

Then there is the issue of the recognition of spiritual gifts. Your argument, as I understand it, is that ordination only facilitates the exercise of these gifts. The gift exists regardless. I've already mentioned that it is the officers themselves who are Christ's gift to the church. Nevertheless, I do not want to downplay the idea that the officers themselves are gifted. But, is their ordination the recognition of this gift, or is it the bestowal of this gift? 1 Timothy 4:14 indicates the latter, "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you." [Incidently, for all of the "every promise in the book is mine" types, Timothy was the pastor of the church at Ephesus. Chances are, you don't get to read yourself into this passage.]

I will agree on the identity of the Philip in Acts 8. Your argument is that a deacon has baptized, therefore, a non-elder may dispense the sacraments. Assuming that your premise is correct, this passage does not show that a non-officer can dispense the sacraments. It would simply support the idea that the dispensing of the sacraments extends to the lowest office. However, I don't believe that your premise is entirely correct. Philip was a deacon, but this was not the only office that he held. Acts 21:8, "On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him." Philip was authorized to baptize because he held the office of evangelist.

*nods* Fair enough.

So, your contention is basically that the offices only serve to institutionalize and recognize a certain set of spiritual gifts, whereas those gifts can exist outside of that office and can and should be expressed (except in the pragmatic exceptions) without the office?

I'll have to chew on that for bit. There are some points and extents to which I could be on board with it. For example, I dispute that "ruling elder" and "teaching elder" are actually separate offices, but rather are more a matter of pragmatically institutionalized gifts. On the other hand, those offices aren't mentioned in Scripture, either, so its easier to point to them as simply pragmatic implementations.

Hmmm... Good clarifications, Chris. I am not persuaded of your view, but I understand it better and will give more thought to it.

Hello
May I respectfully comment that Christ is the Head of every man. Organisation is not the Head of any man and organisation is not the church. The Church is the presence of Christ and only the presence of Christ constitutes a church. For He must be "all in all". Organisation is merely a vehicle for the gospel ministry and has its rightful place. However when Christians place organisation in the place of Christ they erect a man-made heirachy which is the first step in the union of church and state and popery. The Bible knows nothing about such a heirarchy. Peter says that we are all priests of Christ. Leaders we need even bishops elders and deacons but bishops and elders deacons are servants of their brethren not Lords. Christ taught that if anyone sought the position of leader he should become their bond servant He should serve and not Lord it over his brethren. He is our Example in all things.
Would to God we would return to primitive godliness of the Word then the glory of man would be laid in the dust where it belongs then the true church would emerge, Christ would be glorified, the gospel proclaimed with power throughtout the world and Christ coming would be hastened.
Christian love
Brian

Brian,

From your statement about returning to the "primitive godliness of the Word," I will assume that you are advocating sola sciptura, that is, that the standard of our faith and practice is to be the Word of God alone. If you are, we agree; if not, please correct me. That said, though, I question either your exegesis or your clarity. You are correct in noting that, in relation to popery, "the Bible knows nothing about such a heirarchy." This Episcopalian form of church polity is practiced by Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox among others. They will claim that the authority for this is derived from tradition (which is an entirely different argument). Nevertheless, if we are agree that Scripture alone is insufficient to sanction a heirarchical or Episcopalian church government, it does not follow from this that the Bible does not sanction any form of organized church government; or that organization within the church is necessarily heirarchical. It also does not follow from the supreme importance of Christ in and to the church that organization should be reduced to "merely a vehicle for the gospel ministry." As to your observation about Peter saying that we are all priests, this is irrelevant to the point. Moses said the same thing to ancient Israel and there is no question that they had a divinely ordained religious organization.

You begin your comments with two, possibly three allusions to Scripture. The first is from I Corinthians 11:3, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." This verse, however, supports the idea of the headship of Christ through some form of organization. Christ is not the head of men only, but of both men and their wives. He rules the women through the subordinate headship of their husbands. Still, you may agree with this. Perhaps the point is that no one stands between Christ and every man. But this would be an argument from silence and not a very good one at that. That this passage was never meant to be an exhaustive description of church polity can be seen in two ways: 1) Other passages of Scripture that speak of the function of church officers who are more than mere husbands, and 2) Paul himself would have no authority to write this if he did not stand in the line of authority between Christ and the men of the church.

"The Church is the presence of Christ and only the presence of Christ constitutes a church." No. The claim, as written, is that the presence of Christ is sufficient to have a Church. This is absurd, for it would mean that nothing else is necessary, including church members. I don't think you meant to say that. You do, however, seem to be intentionally using this statement to downplay the role of organization within the church. While I won't say that the presence of Christ contitutes a church, I will readily agree that there can be no church without the presence of Christ. I will also say that, where the church is rightly constituted, Christ is present. As to your "all in all" quote, this is out of context and not even about Christ. I Corinthians 15:28, if you care to look it up.

Beyond arguing against the points you have asserted, let me positively state what I believe to be the case. I do agree with your characterization of leaders as servants, but only if this applies to the manner and attitude of their leadership. It should not be taken as a negation of their authority. The elders of the church have been invested by Christ with the keys of the kingdom, which is the authority to discipline. While it is true that the head of every man is Christ, he exercises authority over his church by means of an organizational structure consisting of ordained church officers. This organization is not "merely" anything. It is vital to the existence of the church.