Church Government According to the Bible. Simon V. Goncharenko

see the elders/overseers of the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations forming themselves into local presbyteries.84 Much of their system is based on the account of the conference in Jerusalem described in Acts 15, which was convened with the purpose of identifying the terms of Gentile conversion—that is, faith alone versus faith plus circumcision and observation of dietary laws. Presbyterianism considers the Jerusalem council to have set a precedent for their general assembly.

Their interpretation of Acts 15 is as follows: When the local church in Antioch did not believe that they had sufficient authority to settle for themselves the terms of membership in their churches, a request was made for the assembly of elders to convene in Jerusalem.85 Furthermore, the Presbyterians consider the dissemination of Acts 15 decisions, as evidenced in Acts 16:4, to be further proof that the apostles and elders did not regard the congregations to which they wrote as independent and autonomous, but rather as “mutually submissive to, mutually dependent upon, and mutually accountable to one another.”86 Additionally, Christ’s high priestly prayer for the “visible unity” of his followers in John 17:20–21, as well as the interdependent nature of the gifts of the Spirit, are put forth as further arguments for Presbyterian connectionalism:

In light of the biblical emphasis, then, on visible Christian unity and “oneness” (see John 10:10–13; Rom 15:5–6; Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 1:10–13; 12:12–13; Eph 2:14–16; 4:3–6; Phil 2:2; Col 3:12–14), why, Presbyterians wonder, do Congregationalists put so much emphasis upon—indeed, even glory in as one of their distinctives—local church autonomy, self-consciously making their independency from each other and from other denominational churches a major reason for claiming “bragging rights” over Presbyterian connectionalism so far as their form of church government reflecting the teaching of the New Testament is concerned?87

Under the presbyterian system, there is a deliberate coordinating of clergy and laity.88 Both groups are included in all of the various governing assemblies and neither has special powers or rights that the other does not have.89 However, their exegesis of 1 Tim 5:17 draws a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders.90 Ruling elders are non-ministerial elders of the church who are elected by the local congregation. Teaching elders are those who have been set apart for the ministry of the Word and are called by the local congregation to labor among them, but ordained and installed in their work by presbyteries.91 The Presbyterian recognition of the ruling elder is based on the distinction of teaching and ruling gifts (1 Tim 5:17; Rom 12:8; 1 Cor 12:28), and the divinely authorized role of the elders of the people in the Old Covenant (Num 11:16, 17), continued in the New (Acts 11:30; cf. Matt 13:52; 23:34).92

The presbyterian model views the office of the deacon as one of ministry rather than spiritual government. It is charged with the service of mercy to the poor and needy among the saints, and, as God grants opportunity, to the world.93

When it comes to church discipline within this branch of Christianity, although the ordinary members of the church are frequently called upon to take part in the application of discipline, it is generally applied by the officers of the church and can be applied only by them when discipline becomes censure.94 Distinguishing between private and public sins, Presbyterians have a different way to deal with each. In case of private sins (trespasses dealing with interpersonal relationships), the pattern of Matt 18:15–17 is usually followed, with a personal confrontation preceding a confrontation by a group of people and possibly resulting in a confrontation by the church. Public sins, however, render the sinner subject to disciplinary action by the consistory at once, without the formality of any preceding private admonitions, even if there is no formal accusation.95

      Elaborating on the disciplinary process exercised by the consistory, Berkhof unveils its three stages:

(a) The excommunicatio minor, restraining the sinner from partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This is not public, and is followed by repeated admonitions by the consistory, in order to bring the sinner to repentance. (b) If the preceding measure does not avail, it is followed by three public announcements and admonitions. In the first of these the sin is mentioned, but the sinner is not named. In the second the name is made known in accordance with the advice of classis, which must first be obtained. And in the third the imminent final excommunication is announced, in order that this may have the consent of the congregation. During all this time the consistory, of course, continues its admonitions. (c) Finally, this is followed by the excommunicatio major, by which one is cut off from the fellowship of the Church, Matt 18:17; 1 Cor 5:13; Titus 3:10,11.96

Berkhof adds that according to 2 Cor 2:5–10, it is always possible to reinstate the sinner, provided he or she shows due repentance and confesses his or her sins.97 All church power, according to Presbyterianism, is wholly moral and spiritual.98 Church officers possess no civil jurisdiction; they may not inflict civil penalties nor seek the aid of the civil authority in the exercise of their jurisdiction.99

      Congregational Polity

Congregational polity, as defined by James Leo Garrett, is “that form of church government in which final human authority rests with the local or particular congregation when it gathers for decision-making.”100 Thus, congregationalism locates the authority of the church in each local body of believers.101 Saucy summarizes well how this works out on a local level:

Emphasis is upon the democratic structure of the church whereby the ultimate authority is vested in the members themselves. This does not preclude ministers elected in recognition of their divine gifts to serve as leaders, but their authority rests in their relation to the congregation and is generally less extensive in practice than either the episcopal or presbyterian ministers. In the ultimate sense, officers have no more ecclesiastical authority than any other member. Each has but one vote on any issue.102

Whereas the historical roots of episcopal (which date to the rise in prominence of the office of the bishop in the second and third centuries a.d.) and presbyterian (which most trace back to the writings of John Calvin) forms of church government are generally better known, it may be of value to take a moment here to review the origins of congregationalism. According to Kern’s work, A Study of Christianity as Organized, the original motive for the establishment of congregationalism was neither doctrinal nor legislative, but disciplinary: “It was distinctly a moral motive—not a desire for a scriptural in place of an unscriptural creed, nor a scriptural in place of an unscriptural form of government, but the desire for a scriptural in place of an unscriptural state of discipline.”103 In the course of their study and further investigation of Scripture, the early Separatists did reach the conclusion that their newly adopted polity was in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, rather than their own invention.104