11 responses so far ↓

• 1 Joseph Daniels // Nov 18, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  WOW! You are brave.

• 2 StewB // Nov 19, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  Sic ‘em! This could be a watershed moment in the history of the church.

• 3 Jim Pruitt // Nov 20, 2008 at 11:37 pm

  I have been thinking quite a bit lately about “the church,” the assembling together of the saints”: what it is and what it should look like. So, the line that strikes me is “a biblical and orthodox expression of Anglican Christianity.” The Bible is a wealth of information defining what the Christian expression should be: an outward as well as inward conformation to the image of Christ. Yet, the Bible is very sparse in regards to the structure of the “assembly” of the saints. This lack of organizational guidelines is either an implication that we are not intended to assemble in organizational structures or we have great freedom in the structures we choose to use. Yet, when Christianity becomes an organization or a set of organizations, rather than a reference to people who exemplify their savior, then we tend to get into strife and dissension. I’m exploring this, so I have no conclusion to make about anything you’ve written. I do hope and pray that God continues to lead you as you’ve requested.

  Thanks for fighting the good fight.

• 4 Shane Copeland // Nov 22, 2008 at 8:03 am

  Jim,
  It encourages me to know that you are wrestling with the nature of the Church. I wrestled with it for years before I became settled with the Anglicanism as best expressing the church visible. And I do still ask these questions, but for me this is my home.
  I agree that the Bible is very sparse in regards to the structure, but it does name some: the ordaining of elders/overseers (presbyters/bishops) and deacons. It also calls for all things to be done in order.
  As I wrestled with these things, I sought to discover how was the early church organized and not just try to interpret the Scripture through our 21st century, highly-individualized American eyes.
  What I found in the earliest writings outside of the New Testament, is a church that was being structured with the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon. I also found liturgy and order to worship. Now neither of these were as fully developed as they became as the centuries moved on, but they were there.
  This made me question the concept of “house churches” as we know them today. I think that by and large what we call house churches with little structure, authority, and connection to the broader church is far different than the house churches of the Apostolic and post-Apostolic age.
  But I also remain committed to the Protestant conviction of Sola Scriptura (as the Reformers understood it). That is that the Bible is the FINAL authority of matters of Faith and Practice.
  What the Anglican Church gives me then, is the historic structuring and practice of the early church, without the requirement that this is the ONLY way church can be done. This falls back to the sparseness of Scripture issue.
  I believe that the sparseness of Scripture gives us the freedom to structure the church differently. Now there are Anglicans who would disagree with me on this, but I am holding to valid Anglican thought. If I thought that the early church structure was the ONLY way, then I would probably have to become Orthodox.
  I hope this is helpful. I will probably have to blog more on this at another time.
  Shane+

• 5 Joseph Daniels // Nov 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  Shane, I did not sense that Jim Pruitt is “wrestling” with anything. He is simply exploring ecclesiology. This does not mean he is struggling with the topic. In my estimation I assume He simply wants to acquire more information. I did not sense he was “wrestling” with anything when I read his blog response.
  Please correct me if I am wrong, but what many of us are exploring in our current differences with the typical American Church is the question whether or not 21st century American (Big “E”) Evangelicalism is a representation of the true faith, a place that the Lord Jesus Christ would attend on Sunday morning and approve of if he were walking here and now on earth in this day and age. Personally, I believe if He were to attend services, He’d go to China or Korea , not the USA IF He were limited to space and time.
  Modern American Evangelicalism, personified in the church growth movement/mega-church movement, has made it difficult for some people to consider it a credible witness to the world today. It has isolated itself from its own heritage. For example, yet the men who lived a generation ago would not recognize the American Church as a serious threat to its own enemies. American Evangelicalism has place for everyone, believer and unbeliever alike. Maybe this is what Jesus had in mind?
  I disagree with both you and Jim Pruitt that the Bible offers sparse information about what structure should be in place. In fact, I think it is quite clear on the topic.
  House churches may once again be necessary one day. Stranger things have happened …

• 6 Shane Copeland // Nov 22, 2008 at 3:10 pm

  Nick,
  Ok, maybe “wrestling” was not the best choice of words. I did not mean wrestling in the sense of “struggling,” but more in the sense of what you say: “exploring.”
  Of course, Jim, can correct either of us here.
  Since you disagree with both Jim and I on the sparse Biblical instruction, I’d like to hear what you think the Bible does tell us to do regarding the structure of the visible church.

• 7 Joseph Daniels // Nov 22, 2008 at 5:31 pm

  Please peruse the following passages. Please let me know if you find any citation errors or faulty reasoning:

  First of all, the head of the church is the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5: 4; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18).

  There are teachers (Matt. 28: 19-20; 2 Tim. 1:11; Acts. 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; Heb. 5:12; Jas. 3:1; Rom. 12:7; Gal. 6:6; Acts 2:42; 4:2; 5:28; 5:42; 15:1, 35; 18:11, 25; 20:20; 21:21; 28:31; Rom. 6:17; 12:7; 16:17; 1 Cor. 14:6; 14:26; Col. 1:28; 3:16; 1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 3:10; 2 Tim. 3:16; 4:15; Titus 2:3; 2 John 1:9-10; ).

  There are evangelists/missionaries. See many of the “teaching” citations as there are many instances preaching/teaching/proclaiming are made in the same breath and are barely – if at all—distinguishable due to the nature of the work (Col. 1:28; Rom. 1:15; 10:15; 15:20; 1 Cor. 1:17, 23; 9:16; 2 Cor. 4:5; Gal. 1:16; 2:2; Eph. 3:8; Acts 21:8; 2 Tim. 4:5; Eph. 4:11).

  There are pastors (Eph. 4:11; John 21:16).

  There are elders and bishops (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2-6; 22-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; James 5:14; 1 Tim. 4:17; Titus 1; Eph 4:11)—and these terms can be used interchangeably based on texts 1 Tim. 3: 1-2 and Titus 1:7 and 1 Peter 5:1-3 and Philippians 1:1) .

  And there are deacons (Php 1:1; 1 Tim. 3; Acts 6).

  Perhaps I missed someone? …. Oh I forgot that there are Christian Celebrities, but I cannot find a proof text.

• 8 Shane Copeland // Nov 22, 2008 at 5:45 pm

  Nick,
  I concur with your list, but this doesn’t tell me how these parts fit together. This is what I mean by the “sparseness of Scripture.”
  Jesus is the Head of the Church. He appointed the Apostles. They in turn ordained elders/bishops (I agree that these terms are used interchangeably in the NT) and deacons in local churches. As for pastors, teachers, evanglelists, ti can certainly be argued that these are gifts (or gifted persons) rather than offices.

  The 39 Articles of Religion give the definition of the Visible Church as such:

  XIX. Of the Church.
  The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

  As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

  This is a very Reformed definition of which I think you would agree with.
  Shane+

• 9 Joseph Daniels // Nov 22, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  I guess the structure of the church (who does what and when and how) makes a lot of sense to me when I reviewed the Scripture texts. I actually read every one cited in my response once more this evening . Since I am involved in organizational management in my company and therefore create org charts on a regular basis, all this adds up to me. If it were up to me, I’d organize the United States government after the church! It’s a brilliant arrangement – a very beautiful composition of people’s gifting, reporting path, accountability, disciplinary procedures, leadership model, etc. It’s quite sophisticated, but not too complicated that the Body is left wondering who does what, or where they are to turn for guidance.

  Generally speaking, the spiritual gift that is bestowed upon a man by the Spirit of God is what his office is. The church confirms the gifting he already has by putting him to work.

• 10 Jim Pruitt // Nov 22, 2008 at 10:21 pm

  Shane and Joseph,

  Thanks for getting involved in my–our–pursuit. I think I’d have to side with Shane on the “wrestling” thing. I hadn’t thought of my considering and processing about the structure of the church as wrestling, but when I read it in Shane’s response, it resonated. I guess there’s more emotion in it for me than I had thought. I’ve recently parted from the local church I’ve been a part of since 1973. It is difficult and my search for a new local church has made this topic very personal and poignant.

  Like Shane, I also don’t immediately see the organization behind terms such as “teacher.” Elders are supposed to be apt to teach, so are teachers supposed to be elders or under elder’s authority? or more likely both. These relationships can be worked out pretty easily. It is not so with offices like Senior Pastor, Assistant Pastor, Associate Pastor, Executive Pastor, Director of (fill-in the blank) Ministry, acolyte, priest, bishop as an office below archbishop, etc.

  In today’s church life the church is more apt to direct gifting, than to have gifting direct the church. By that I mean something as simple as this: a church organization has specific functions–evangelism, education, worship, and a missions program–someone with leadership authority, such as a synod or diocese, determines that this is the year of world evangelism, so the local church starts looking for brothers and sisters gifted in cross-cultural evangelism and church planting–even though neither of these are specifically listed in the bible as a gift. The local body begins to develop or utilize authorized training materials to train the gifted ones they find to go into all the world, even though God has gifted that particular body with, say, many people with the gift of service or prophecy. I have come to believe that God gives local bodies of believers specific ministry guidance through the gifting of the people He draws to it. The multi-layered authority structures of most church organizations do not allow for the type of dependence on Jesus as the head of the local church as well as the universal church needed for local bodies to respond to the gifting of their members.

  Love you guys,
  Jim

• 11 Joseph Daniels // Nov 23, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  There are teachers whose ministry is an actual calling of God and is confirmed by the church. As a teaching minister it is his duty to feed God’s flock. In many cases he can serve as an evangelist to bear the “Good News” of salvation to the lost. He is to exhort the brothers and admonish (hopefully convince) the skeptic with sound doctrine. This man should be firm in the faith, possess learning, and be able to teach others. He should exhibit holiness, wisdom, and discretion. He should rule his own house well and have a good rapport with those outside the church. The teaching minister is also the ideal person to educate students at seminaries or write books.

  There are evangelists/missionaries whose job it is to make disciples of all nations. Even though it is the calling of every believer to profess/confess the Lord Jesus Christ before all men there are some who are specifically called by Christ and His church to be evangelists. It is the evangelist’s job is to bring in other sheep. Those sheep which the evangelist has found are to start a local community of believers, that is to say an organized church. To protect the integrity of the Gospel message it is wise to ordain missionaries through the church. Independent missionaries, without an official calling through the church, should not be encouraged. Important tasks that missionaries/evangelists can do are 1) go to a foreign mission field; 2) speak as a guest preacher at churches; 3) chaplain at a hospital or in the military; 4) work as an administrator for a mission agency; 5) work in a para-church ministry (publishing, communications, and so on).

  There are pastors whose job it is to feed and tend to Christ’s flock. The pastor should lead the flock to serve in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ. The pastor should lead the flock to worship on the Lord’s day. He should pray for and care for the flock. He is to officiate at baptisms and at the Lord’s Supper. He should teach the flock the ways of God, minister to the poor, visit the sick, and counsel people. Preach the Gospel to the lost, too.

  The elders and bishops are to provide government and general oversight for the church. They should be men of exemplary lives and sound in the faith. They are to watch over the flock and ensure that false doctrine does not enter the church. They, too, should visit the sick and the poor.

  And then there are deacons who are the “compassionate ones.” They are to show mercy toward the flock and even strangers to the church. These folk are to care for people who are in distress. They should distribute money, food, and help anyone in the flock who needs assistance.

  Many independent churches relish in the fact that they do not organize themselves in this manner (above) and some remain in a state of chaos because they want to be free of denominational oversight. Furthermore, their celebrity pastors do not want to be held to any accountability or supervision. Sooner or later, and after the independent church experiences organizational problems for any great length, they usually end up with a form similar to that listed above because this is the organizational form God wants in a church. Calvary Chapel and the Evangelical Free Church are two examples of many independent church organizations that became denominations with bylaws, doctrinal standards, and formalized leadership structure, though they implicitly despised and overtly mocked such things at their inception.

Leave a Comment