Church Government According to the Bible. Simon V. Goncharenko
Читать онлайн книгу.
which is precisely the focus of this work.
2
Key Terms and Polity Models
Among the concepts that need to be defined at this point are such articles as sufficiency of Scripture, church polity, and hermeneutics. The success of any foregoing discussion can be greatly impeded when writer and reader find themselves operating with different meanings of the terms. Outlined below, then, are the definitions of some of the most common concepts discussed in this work.
Definition of Terminology
Sufficiency of Scripture
The doctrine of sufficiency generally answers the question of whether the Bible is enough in knowing what God wants us to think or do.24 According to Wayne Grudem, “the sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.”25 Sufficiency of Scripture, according to Yves Congar, means that “God has given us everything necessary or useful for the conduct of our lives.”26
Church Polity
Polity, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English, is “A form or process of civil [or in our case, religious] government or constitution.”27 The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology contains the following definition of polity: “the organization or governmental structure of a local church or fellowship of churches.”28 Dargan, a nineteenth-century Baptist theologian, defines polity as “the method of organization and rule under which a church, or churches, live and act.”29 Brand and Norman espouse the following particularly helpful definition of polity in the introduction to their Perspectives on Church Government: “As the church corporately submits herself to the lordship of Christ, the process, expression, and structure of her submission can be designated church polity.”30
Hermeneutics
Since the two foundational chapters of this work, chapters 3 and 4, center on the issue of biblical hermeneutics, a quick working definition of this concept is called for here. The English word “hermeneutics” comes from the Greek verb hermeneuō31 and the noun hermeneia.32 These words point back to the wing-footed messenger god, Hermes, in Grecian mythology. As Zuck points out:
He was responsible for transmuting what is beyond human understanding into a form that human intelligence can grasp. He is said to have discovered language and writing and was the god of literature and eloquence, among other things. He was the messenger or interpreter of the gods, and particularly of his father Zeus.33
Thus the verb hermeneuō came to refer to bringing someone to an understanding of something in his language or in another language.34 Of the nineteen times hermeneuō and h.ermeneia occur in the New Testament, they are more frequently used in the sense of translation (John 1:42; Luke 24:27), which can be understood as an explanation in one language of what is conveyed in another language.35
Hermeneutics, therefore, is the science (principles) and art (task) by which the meaning of biblical text is determined.36 It should be distinguished from exegesis, which is the determination of the meaning of the biblical text in its historical and literary contexts, and exposition, which is the communication of the meaning of the text along with its relevance to present-day hearers.37 Zuck likens hermeneutics to a cookbook, comparing exegesis to the preparation and baking of the cake and exposition to serving the cake.38
Hence, hermeneutics provides the rules or guidelines, the principles and theory governing a proper approach to understanding the Bible.39
Our Main Focus
In his book, Gospel and Spirit, which deals primarily with hermeneutical issues in the Pauline epistles, Gordon D. Fee ends his chapter entitled “Observations on Church Order” by raising some questions regarding the proper application of the New Testament “church order.” For “if we do think in terms of ‘modeling’ after the New Testament church,” asks Fee, “which of the various models do we opt for, and why?”40 In answering Fee’s question, I will argue based on the research conducted that multiple-elder congregationalism, unlike any other form of church government, enjoys the unequivocally overwhelming support of the Bible. Because any biblical argument for a model of church government relies upon the particular position that one takes on the basic hermeneutical/theological principles—a position that functions as a presupposition—I will delineate my own position in the next chapter. In order to validate the contention of this manuscript, it will be necessary to demonstrate that both the theological principles that form our pre-understanding and the exegesis of the biblical data in polity that rests on this pre-understanding are in line with Scripture.41
Because our understanding of church polity is directly related to our position on the following hermeneutical principles, it is my contention that the way to the multiple-elder congregationalism as the most biblically defensible form of church government lies through a position for the above-mentioned principles that is in line with the teachings and general intent of the word of God, as follows: (1) Scripture reigns over tradition; (2) literal interpretation is the best way of understanding the Bible consistently; (3) the New Testament church originated at Pentecost; (4) the offices of apostle and prophet were the foundation blocks of the spiritual building—the church; (5) the offices of elder, overseer, and pastor are interchangeable in nature and function; (6) application of any biblical passage and principle must follow interpretation. Conversely, a disregard for the above-mentioned six principles will yield a church government structure that does not comply with the biblical ideal, does not achieve its full potential, and opens itself to abuse, as is evidenced by history.
The next two chapters are devoted to further explication of these principles, while the following two chapters examine how they affect our understanding and practice of church polity. At this point, however, it may be of benefit to examine the most popular models of church polity.
Primary Polity Models
A brief survey of the main polity models is in order. Perhaps a disclosure regarding a limitation for this section needs to be made first. The scope of this segment is limited to a survey. It is a survey because, with the number of writing theologians boasted by each tradition, it is not possible to cover every single nuance in their respective literature, nor is this the focus of the present work.
What follows, therefore, is a representative sampling that is designed to examine closely some of the larger elements that make each tradition’s exposition of church polity distinctive. With that in mind, perhaps the following will suffice as the simplest list of views available: (1) episcopal polity; (2) presbyterian polity; and (3) congregational polity. What is perhaps most striking about the wide variety of Protestant views on polity is that, whether in part or as a whole,