Overseeing God’s People –
IN THE CONGREGATION
“If a man desire overseeship he desires a good work”
(1Timothy 3:1)
Chapter One: Re-Establishing God’s Authority
Over ALL Human Leadership
It was Thomas Campbell (father of Alexander) who in relatively modern times is credited with the basic and most fundamental statement for unity among all persons desiring to be God’s people: “Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.” And another highly respected spokesman for the Lord said it well: “It is not what the Bible says, but what the Bible does not say, that divides us.”
It should be fairly easy for those of us who are literate and have some ability to comprehend the meanings of words composed in possibly the most definitive language the world has ever known, and with sincerity, learn the basics of leadership of God’s people.
Perhaps it was the product of certain ones who were not willing to “speak where the Bible speaks,” that has carried us away from the authorized overseeing and shepherding of God’s sheep. Or perhaps it was the Bible “scholars” who prefer the inexact counterfeit amended version of Campbell’s statement, i.e., “where the Bible is silent, we have liberty.” It appears that it is this “liberty” that has brought about some 63,000 different religious organizations in America, with more being formed virtually every day. And with the forming of new groups, new creeds for leadership follow automatically.
There have been many “reformation” movements within Christianity throughout its long history.
And, if one accepts the idea that reformation is needed, it is naturally implied that there has been a
departure from the authorized pattern. The same is true for the “restoration”movement of the 19th
century. Nothing needs to be “reformed” or “restored” if it has not been changed, and it is correct
as it is. As the modern expression is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Delegated Authority?
The Roman Catholic Church and mainstream denominations all claim "apostolic succession" to one extent or the other for the authority they exert over their parishioners. This can be summed up by the following excerpt from the Confraternity Edition of the Bible.
"The commission (transmission of Divine revelation) was fulfilled, too, by those apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. But in order to keep the gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the apostles left bishops as their successors, ‘handing over their own teaching role’ to them. . . . And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by a continuous succession of preachers until the end of time. . .This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. . . This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. . . . To the successors of the apostles, sacred tradition hands on in its full purity God's word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy spirit. Thus, led by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently, it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence. . . . The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. . . . It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. . . . For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. . . . Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings. It devolves on sacred bishops, ‘who have apostolic teaching,’ to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels, through translation of the sacred texts. It is his (the bishops) constant occupation. Moreover, in virtue of his ordination he has a special grace enabling him to proclaim God's word properly."
If anyone desired a definition of "apostolic succession,” "Divine Leading,” and continued revelation in the present century, the above quote is sufficient. It was quoted in length because it is representative of the full range and scope of the subject under discussion.
Within the fellowship of the restoration churches, brethren have debated for years whether the "elders" had authority to dictate policy to their charges. An example of this "authoritarian view" was stated by H. E. Phillips, author of “The Church Of Christ,” and teacher associated with the “non-institutional” (NI) Churches of Christ.
"The authority of the eldership in the church is the authority of Christ. To rebel against the Scriptural
eldership is to rebel against Christ."
Thus, we can easily observe, whether Catholic, Protestant, or restorationist, claims of authority come
from the argument that Jesus -- in one way or another -- delegated his authority to church leaders
today.
How did this view arise and is it indeed Biblical? Since Jesus had plainly said that all authority was his, proponents of the authoritarian view must give "chapter and verse" to support their claims. The "delegated authority" view has laid the foundation of untold abuse to God’s people, and caused significant departure from the inspired writings. It is directly counter to the exclusive instructions of Jesus to his apostles. (John 13-17.) While “reformists” and “restorationists” have rejected the claims of the Roman Catholic Bishop of possessing authority through apostolic succession via Peter, too often they make the same mistake and claim authority from misapplied Scriptures, and the assumed powers of "necessary inference." This view of "delegated authority" has been most helpful in leading to the highly developed ecclesiastical organizations of our day, even “local churches” of the church of Christ who capitalize “congregational autonomy.”
Speaking Where The Bible Speaks
We owe much to Martin Luther who challenged the Roman Catholic claims to virtual sovereignty, but introduced unintentionally an equally powerful deviation from the original pattern with “Protestant” denominations – sectarianizing the One Body of Christ. But also, a potential challenge to those who would be Christians and only Christians, has been the near worship of the Restoration Movement spokesmen, rather than a studied obedience to the ancient ways of the apostle-led saints.
Though the seeds of the Restoration Movement had already been planted in Europe, they found
the fertile soil and necessary nourishment in fast growing 19th century America. Men of various
denominations were convicted that their sects were guilty of violating Scriptural precepts by their
catechisms, creeds, and human tenets. Thus was ushered in a new age; a return to individual
responsibility and accountability to God; for each one to know God's true will for himself and for
all others. Personal Bible study and accountability was urged upon the common people ("laity”).
A
call went out to all those who would follow Jesus to reject all anti-Biblical precepts. "Lay aside your
creeds and use the Bible only," was the challenge. "Cease the use of denominational names," was
the dare. "Erect no orthodoxy based upon arguments from silence," was the admonition. New
definitions were called for. "Call Bible things by Bible names," was the plea. Challenges for public
discussion were issued and accepted. Debates took place in town halls, religious and school
buildings, and in open squares. Millions answered the call. Even more were influenced by the logic
and purity of this “restoration plea.” Restoration leaders were so optimistic regarding the ultimate
results that more than a few believed that the "millennium" would be ushered in as a result of
progress made. Another Pentecost, some claimed!
Backward Progress Hindered
Unfortunately, like most all other “back to the Bible” movements in recent history, it’s influence was impeded by self-interested men who seemed to want to capitalize their ideas and attain a status among men. Many times it was the innovating “pulpit preacher,” or a chief contributor, who brought about changes. Perhaps the introduction of the instrument into the assembly at Midway, Ky. in 1859 by L. L. Pendleton, is a good example. (The singing was bad – terribly bad – the good “change-agent” argued. We must “improve” our worship by improving our music. I’m sure many of us have heard this same refrain today?) In my own experience I hear preachers proclaim a doctrine of “convenience,” or whatever facilitates their ideas to be promoted. Whatever is “expedient” that promotes the peace and happiness of the group is often the program of the day. Nickels and noses; we must have the money and people to further our system. As one old timer who had attended a particular congregation in a big southern city for 38 years told me, “I’ve been told over and over to ‘attend, give, and not make trouble’.”
And so the restoration movement declined, but did not die. It can be said to have suffered in 1866 with the death of Alexander Campbell, one of its strongest proponents. The success produced from restoration zeal lost its focus as the various groups, with their accepted leaders, contested for recognition from the community at large. (Is the same not true today?) Perhaps they were deceived into believing that they had arrived; that true Christianity had indeed been restored; that now was the time to consolidate their gains and status. Instead of continuing to maintain an atmosphere of healthy Biblical discussion and debate, they began instead to formulate their own “last word” doctrines and began to defend their own particular creed.
It would seem that academic (studying, giving diligence) and evangelistic entrenchment has
always produced spiritual stagnation. David Lipscomb felt compelled to remind all truth seekers that
"To suppress discussion is to deprive truth of all its vantage ground.” Even though the Truth in love
(Eph 4:15) has nothing to fear from open discussion, related debate was discouraged. Eventually the
movement became somewhat of a “protected monument;” virtually as immovable and inflexible as
those that their forefathers had attempted to destroy.
As an ultimate result, full-blown division
(sectarianism and denominationalism) occurred as “Churches” patterned after the commercial
institutions of the country were formed, “cathedrals” patterned after the Catholic empire were built
at convenient places (even today with zealous teaching against such, they (the buildings) are still
called by many brethren “Churches.”), and ministerial schools and colleges patterned after the great
English and Northeast universities of America were planted to train the defenders of their particular
brand of “faith.” The intellectual power of the new found scholars was harnessed to protect and
defend the “correct" Biblical exposition and commentary. "If a favorite brother didn't write it, it
couldn't be right" was the subliminal message.
Instead of continuing along the trail blazed by the restoration fathers and away from the mind restricting confines of Romanism and Denominationalism, it may well be that we have become “like” them. Jimmy Allen – by my judgment – is one of the most courageous and articulating spokesmen for undenominational Christianity of our day. He states:
“The distinctions between simple New Testament Christianity and modern Denominationalism has been made difficult to teach because we ourselves have become guilty of practicing much of that which we have preached against. This is true, whether you believe it or not, and strange as it may sound. Alexander Pope, in his Essay On Man, states: ‘Vice is a monster of such frightful mien; That to be hated, needs but to be seen. But seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.’ We've heard about denominationalism. We've talked about denominationalism. We've seen denominationalism on every hand. And -- in all too many instances -- we have become like that which we have preached against.”
My judgment is that those who believe themselves to be the people of God, and are known
mostly as “members of the Church of Christ,” have tended more and more toward becoming the
Church of Christ Church, with much ecclesiastical officialdom, and and have left the striving for
individual relationship with God with all its responsibilities, obligations and blessings. We have
become in many (not all) respects just another denomination and back-slid towards "the pastor
system” of the denominational world. Article after article was written in the early part of the 20th
century on the question, “Are we just another denomination?,” or, “Are we becoming a
denomination?” And in recent years several articles, usually by our academic scholars, have been
written saying, “Why not accept the fact that we ARE just another ‘denomination’.” Sadly, this is
leaving the marvelous restoration principles null and void. Much backsliding was already occurring
during the heyday of the restoration movement period, and there were elements of the
denominational apostasy that had gone unaddressed altogether then, and certainly today. In a very
recent featured article (2005) from “Christianity Today” it is said that the divide between
Catholicism and Denominationalism is becoming very narrow.
RENEWAL
It is to this tendency towards drifting away from the Scriptural presentation of congregational leadership that this article directs its study. Let’s go back to the Scriptures and “speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where the Scriptures are silent.” And, as the Scriptures surely do, let us emphasize the individual relationship with the Almighty God for all of His children, with all the obligations of responsibility and accountability inherent in the relationship.
Martin Luther, the best known reformer and the major catalyst of the Great Reformation movement that took place in Europe in the 16th century admonishes all those that would be Biblical students with these words:
"O that God should desire that my interpretation and that of all teachers should disappear, and each Christian should come straight to the Scripture alone and to the pure Word of God! . . . Go on to the Bible itself, dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of all scholars be no more that a tool with which to build aright, so that we can understand, taste, and abide in the simple and pure Word of God; for God dwells alone in Zion."
Luther and his colleagues also said:
"We desire to follow Scripture alone as rule of faith and religion, without mixing it with any other thing which might be devised by the opinion of men, apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to accept for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by the same word without addition or diminution, according to the command of our Lord."
Having been raised as a child of the Restoration Movement influences, and having had and still having great respect for many of these “worthies,” makes questioning the foundational traditions of our present fellowship unsettling, to say the least. Alexander Campbell was a giant of a thinker, as was his father Thomas Campbell, and others of course. These came out of darkness into substantial light, and I, as a upstart of lesser light, am slow to denigrate these and others of their statue . (It has been correctly said that a pigmy on the back of a normal man seems to become a giant.” We are not giants; we are beneficiaries of these great men.)
Resisting Inappropriate Traditionalism
And yet, I now believe that I must question some of the accepted conclusions from time to time. Human nature has shown a continual gravitation toward shifting away from responsibility and accountability. Bible history documents over and over those who choose to rule over their fellows, and those who willingly – sometimes innocently – give up their freedoms in Christ without a fight. (Study Gal 5:1 in context.) Many of us who deny the authority of the "clergy/laity" system in Roman Catholicism and most Protestant denominations are blinded by cowardness and lack of courage as we disregard our convictions against such. Many of us who give up easily our rights and privileges in smaller matters too often wake up to realize we have been overcome in more serious matters.
This, of course, is the nature of establishing tradition as if it were Truth. “The way we have been taught” has become the model. “This is the way ‘my old preacher / congregation’ did it.” Problems are easily overlooked as we carry on this heritage. Our search and desire for Truth is continually narrowed as we interpret the Scriptures by our own experiences.
It is our purpose of this article to challenge the generally accepted organizational tradition of our church structure – especially the “local church” with “autonomy” government. From where did the concepts of hired ministry and the owning and maintenance of the corporation-like-board of directors oversight originate? As this student embarks upon the course of examining the Church religious system inherent today, he is reminded of the words of Robert Richardson, one of the Restoration Movement spokesmen. Encouraging individual study as well as the willingness to express one's convictions he writes:
"For my part, I shall ever claim the right of thinking and judging for myself, and of fully and freely expressing my views, whether these correspond with those of others or differ from them. This I conceive to be a high and holy privilege, and its exercise a sacred duty."
This disciple of Christ challenges all those who are interested in truth to remove their blinders as we together engage in this most sacred duty and study the Scriptures together.
Must Be Better Than The Pharisees
The scribes and Pharisees were the spiritual leaders of Israel. In the great “sermon on the Mount” Jesus says:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 5:17-19).
And then he follows with this significantly important statement:
“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” v.20).
The Pharisees started out with a noble purpose. They were the “separatists.” They were going to be the ultra keepers of the Law, both in doctrine and in practice. But they became victims of their own ambitions, and formed a ‘system of slavery’ for the common Jew! In Chapter 23 Jesus characterizes them in these uncomplimentary words:
“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi” (23:1-7).
What was Jesus’ reply to these evils?
* But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
* Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
* Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
* Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
* 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
* 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
* 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
* 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
And now the conclusion:
34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
And, this did in fact come to pass! Remember James? Stephen? Saul?
The Pharisees and scribes had the audacity to question Jesus, stating “the traditions of the elders as a just comparison to the Law of God:
“Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” Mar 7:5-7).
The above Scripture illustrates very well the intellectually crippling nature of man-made traditions. As we can see, these Jewish leaders were not accusing Jesus of breaking God's commandments but the "tradition of the elders."
This practice of the Pharisees had reached a position of supremacy over the very law of God. Its importance in their judgment had blinded them to God's authority. It brought on the accusation by Jesus that their tradition had caused them to actually violate the law of God. Their strict adherence to their creations had caused them to overlook the very Word of God, and had made their very worship vain. Their “traditions” were taught as God's will. (This is typical of many false teachers today, i.e., you are not pleasing God if you don’t accept me and my teaching!) And, Jesus accused them of doing many such things. (v.13).
Many Churches today with their presumptuous claim of authority, especially the Roman Catholic Church, defend their traditions rather than accepting the Word of God. This human propensity towards tradition causes them to multiply their mistakes. It caused the Pharisees to ultimately reject the Messiah, and brought about their eventual damnation.
We children of the Restoration Movement often look with disdain upon a people who could be so uncomprehending. We could never be like them! However, have we not accepted numerous (at least some?) traditions without protest and often vigorously defended them as coming from Heaven?
Barton W. Stone had this to say when commenting on this human tendency buried deep in the heart of us all:
"A creed, or confession of faith, is considered both as a summary of doctrines taught in the Bible and an explanation of them. If it were left in its own place, to occupy the low ground of human opinion, it might do some good. But the moment it is received and adapted as a STANDARD, it assumes the place of the Bible...."
It is not enough to deny the existence of creeds within one's own theology. If they exist in the heart and make themselves known in practice, they are just as much creeds as if they were written and engraved in stone.
Stone went on to explain the necessity of distinguishing between our individual or collective views of Biblical truth and our general propensity to defend our prejudices.
"We must carefully distinguish between believing fundamental Scripture truths and any explanation of them."
My friend and lover of the Scriptures, this has to apply to you – and to me – and to as many of God’s people as are willing to accept it. Truth is not sought and found by “groups,” but by individual thinkers and doers. Some, if not a lot, of our own understandings, are not based upon conviction but upon prejudice. Convictions are founded upon accepting facts, and one can defend his convictions by sharing these facts. Prejudices are founded upon trust in others’ testimony, and are best defended by simply not discussing them. As most of us have learned, we are guilty of seeing what we are trained to see, and fail to see what perhaps we are really looking for, i.e., truth. This is bad enough when looking at a carnal matter, but it is disastrous if we do not show the Scriptures the respect they deserve.
ENDNOTES: