Tag Archives: church history

Setting Things In Order

Literature, , , ,
An Examination of the Biblical Format for Church Administration

by David E. Moss

Introduction

At the moment the church began, its governmental structure consisted of twelve apostles within a group of one hundred and twenty faithful people (Acts 2). Before the first day was over, 3000 converts were added. Soon there were 5000 men besides women and children and more and more were added to Christ daily so that by Acts chapter six, (perhaps only a matter of weeks or months) there was quite a sizeable multitude all in one local church. There were so many, in fact, that the apostles could not possibly do all the necessary work to care for them. Others were chosen to assume some of that responsibility in lesser roles, and this marked the beginning of the organizing of Christ’s body.

Later, God would provide some regulations to the format for church administration. He would ordain offices, designate their qualifications and throughout the New Testament provide information for the church to understand how those officers were to function.

Today, church government comes in many varieties. To some degree this may not be bad. God has always enjoyed creativity and variety. Just look at creation to see that this is so. On the other hand, God has made some very specific statements about order in the church and if the Word is followed, one would think a strong element of uniformity could be observed among local churches. Unfortunately, this is not so.

In Protestant and Independent churches, officers generally fall under the titles of bishop, pastor, elder, deacon, or trustee and are arranged in every possible combination. One church may have pastors and deacons, another may have pastors, elders, and deacons, or pastors, deacons and trustees, or pastors, elders, and trustees, or pastors and elders, etc. Bishop is usually a title found only in denominations and conferred upon regional officers.

The use of the same titles among churches does not mean they represent the same offices, however. Sometimes deacons function like elders, or sometimes they function like trustees. Sometimes trustees function like elders, or elders function like deacons or trustees. There seems to be a great deal of difference of opinion concerning what God intended for the organization of the church

Added to the mix is the more modern innovation of Congregationalism. This is a form of church government which puts all ultimate authority in the hands of the entire church membership by means of a democratic process. Even this concept is not uniform among churches. Some use a pure form of Congregationalism while others mix it with some form of officer groupings which have partial authority in varying degrees.

Finally, there are churches which create their own titles or governmental concepts. They may have a church council, or a group of committees, or an official board, or any number of other innovations. In some cases it may be one of a kind.

This essay is a humble attempt to define some Biblical concepts concerning the offices and duties which God intended within the organization of the church. Perhaps it will help clarify some of the issues involved, and not add to the confusion of ideas on the subject.

The church today is still responsible for operating according to Biblical guidelines. In order to be Biblical, it may be necessary for some to change their modern-day traditional biases. After all, what is more important? Doing what everyone else is doing, following the traditions of men, or obeying God’s instruction?

As you consider the following information, weigh it carefully. Allow God’s Word to speak in its literal sense. Examine each point objectively. And, may your conclusions encourage you in your participation in the body of Christ.

Modern Forms of Church Administration

In spite of the variety of combinations of church offices found among churches, there are primarily three forms of administration or government being used today. The three are Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational.

The Episcopal form of church administration focuses authority upon one man as an executive. The word Episcopal comes from the Greek word episkopos. It is generally translated as “bishop,” though it appears in the Bible as both a noun and a verb. It primarily means “an overseer” or “the act of overseeing.” While the denomination that calls itself the Episcopal Church does use this form of church administration, it can also be observed in other denominations and local churches. Episcopal administration is manifested either by regional bishops or by local pastors. Regional bishops have the authority to assign pastors to local churches without the vote of the people and to intervene in the affairs of the local churches under his jurisdiction. Local pastors sometimes exercise the authority to make enforceable decisions concerning the business matters of the local church under his charge. This authority may in some cases be assigned to the pastor by the congregation, but in other cases only be assumed by him.

The Presbyterian form of church administration focuses authority upon a group of men as a legislative body. The word presbytery comes from the Greek word presbuteros. It appears much more often in Scripture than does episkopos and is almost always translated “elders”. Fifty eight out of sixty seven times it is plural. Presbuteros means “old” or “older.” It was originally a respectful term used for those who had attained a greater age. Then it became a title for those who attained a station of leadership either within a family or within a society. In the context of the church, it was designated as a title for an office of leadership. Its scriptural use being so often in the plural implies elders are to function as a group as opposed to the executive authority exercised by an individual. The Presbyterian Church as a denomination uses this group legislative form of government for their local churches as does any local church which has a group of elders vested with the authority to make and enforce policy.

The Congregational form of church administration focuses authority in the whole assembly by virtue of a democratic process. The word congregation appears hundreds of times in the Old Testament and only once in the New Testament – Acts 13:43. There are several Hebrew synonyms translated congregation. They refer to a large assembly of people gathered for a special purpose in a special place. The one appearance of congregation in the New Testament is a translation of the word synagogue. In addition, the Greek word ekklesia (church) may be considered a New Testament equivalent. Congregationalism as a form of church government emerged after the reformation as a reaction against the abuses of Episcopal authority. There is no Sripture which directly suggests Congregationalism. However, Scriptural support for the concept may be taken from the passages that describe the body of Christ as consisting of many members, all of whom have equal standing with Christ. Again, there is a denomination which bears “Congregational” as its title and which uses this form of church administration. It is also popular among many Baptist churches, some of which mix the Episcopal and Congregational forms, having strong authoritative Pastors, yet bringing much of the business of the church to a vote before the congregation. Congregationalism is probably the most prevalent form of church administration among Independent churches, though often not used in a pure form.

The question that arises and which each local church must settle for itself is, “which form of church government will we use?” Many Independent local churches are convinced that Congregationalism is the only legitimate form to follow. Several things outside of the study of Scripture have led to this. The concepts of Episcopal and Presbyterian administrative authority have become frightening because of the abuses of power that have occurred within them. (Their success depends almost entirely on the caliber of men who serve. Unfortunately, many unqualified men have found their way into these offices.) Also, an endearment to the democratic process has grown very strong within the American culture. Many have come to believe that the inalienable rights of the people to speak their mind freely and to decide things by a majority vote are transferable to the life of the church.

The issue is often settled by an extra-biblical rationale, but when human wisdom prevails it usually leads to trouble. The issue must be settled by a serious examination of the teaching of Scripture concerning church administration. As Titus was instructed to set things in order within the Church at Crete, so it is essential that every local church set things in order according to God’s instruction, and not according to an emotional reaction against the irresponsible actions of certain individual men.

Biblical Teaching Concerning Church Administration

What does the Bible teach on this subject? The following is an examination of the various titles used in church government and what the Bible has to say about each one.

  1. Bishops and Elders

    Are bishops and elders interchangeable titles for the same office or do they represent different offices? The Bible answer is that they speak of different aspects of the same office.

    Bishop is a word of action describing the function of overseeing. In its noun form it is found as bishop or overseer where it refers to a person who oversees (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; I Peter 2:25). As a noun, it also appears as bishoprick or oversight, referring to the area of oversight for which the person is responsible (Acts 1:20; I Timothy 3:1; Luke 19:44; I Peter 2:12). In its verb form it is found as exercising oversight, referring to the act of oversight being performed (I Peter 5:2).

    Elder is a title designating a position of authority. It occurs many times in Scripture, but only in three different contexts: 1- The elders of Israel (Matthew 28:12; Mark 14:53, 15:1); 2- The elders of age (Luke 15:25; John 8:9; Acts 2:17); 3- The elders of the church (Acts 14:23, 20:17; Titus 1:5).

    These two words do refer to the same office, one as a title and the other as a description of responsibility. God ordained that men would rule in the church, that is, provide guidance and care in the ministry to Christ’s body. These men were given the authoritative title of elder so that they would be respected as they fulfilled their function of oversight. This is clearly stated in I Peter 5:1-3 where the elders (presbuteros) were exhorted to take the oversight (episkopos) of the church, willingly and of a ready mind.

    The office corresponds with something to which Israel had been accustomed for sometime. Elders had long been responsible for relaying to the people what God expected and guaranteeing that it was accomplished. Unfortunately, by the time Christ came to earth the elders of Israel had so abused their office and authority that they actually became part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

    Because of the grave responsibility overseeing is, special instruction was given regarding the qualifications one must meet for assuming such a position in the church (I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:7-9). Just as one does not grow wise and elderly overnight, neither does he qualify for the church eldership easily. To be an elder and provide oversight for Christ’s body must be considered a high calling and great privilege. The office must not be assumed lightly.

  2. Pastors

    The word pastor is never suggested as a title for an office by the Bible. Instead, it is listed as one of the gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:11). The Greek word is poimen (pronounced poymain) and means shepherd. As a noun it appears seventeen times in the New Testament and is translated as shepherd sixteen of those times. In addition, it occurs eleven times as a verb and refers to the act of shepherding either by feeding the flock, or taking charge of their welfare.

    Today, pastor is generally used as the title for the chief officer of the church. Some insist that the titles “pastor” and “elder” are synonymous and that only ordained pastors qualify to be elders. While all elders are admonished to be involved in shepherding (I Peter 5:2), no Scripture explicitly states that all elders are given the gift of pastoring. All elders are involved in ruling but not all elders are involved in teaching (I Timothy 5:17).

    Biblically, the word pastor describes a function not an office. It is a functional gift of the Holy Spirit given to some of the elders and a functional activity in which others may participate who do not necessarily have the spiritual gift of pastoring.

    In the true Biblical sense, a pastor is an elder to whom God has given the spiritual gift of pastoring and whom the church has decided is worthy of spending all his energy in fulfilling this calling. A church hires a pastor-elder and agrees to provide for his temporal needs so that he can be free from other employment (I Corinthians 9:1-14; I Timothy 5:17-18). A pastor is an elder who does the work of pastoring. If a man tries to do this full time and has not been given the spiritual gift of pastoring by the Holy Spirit, he will find it a very laborious task.

  3. Deacons

    The word deacon is a transliteration of a Greek word that means servant. Long before it was used as a title for a church office, it was a very common word with many applications in relationship to the concept of serving others. It appears in three forms in the New Testament: 1- as a noun referring to a function (service); 2- as a noun referring to the one performing the function (servant); 3- as a verb referring to the performance of the function (serving). It occurs a little more than one hundred times in the New Testament and is translated in a variety of ways such as deacon, servant, minister, administration, etc.

    Service is the occupation or function of serving, the work or action performed by one that serves (Webster). Scripture applies this word to household service, physical activity such as distributing food and money, and to spiritual service such as missionary work, evangelism, the work of reconciliation, etc.

    The Bible portrays many different people serving in a variety of contexts. Christ served the world (Matthew 20:28). Angels served Christ (Matthew 4:11). Paul served the Corinthians (II Corinthians 3:3). Onesiphorus served Paul (II Timothy 1:18). All Christians are supposed to serve one another (I Peter 4:10).

    The apostles tried to serve the people along with all of their other duties(Acts 6:2), but because it was so time consuming, they designated other men to do certain kinds of service for the church. This was apparently the beginning of the office of deacon. It would be referred to as an office in I Timothy 3:10.

    It is difficult to develop an understanding of the Biblical office of deacon. No where in scripture are the specific duties of the office outlined. In a modern context, nearly every church one may observe has applied the office differently. A word study in the Bible, however, can help us understand some things about deaconing in the church. To deacon is not to take, tell, or rule. biblical characters of authority deaconed not as part of their rulership but as part of their servitude to Christ. To fulfill the office of deacon requires hard work, sacrifice, and total selflessness. It involves both temporal and spiritual matters in meeting the needs of people at the expense of oneself.

    Perhaps God intended the duties of this office to be undefinable so that those who deacon would be willing to provide whatever the church needs without the glory of authority and rulership. And perhaps, one would do well to prove himself in the office of deacon before he aspires to the grave responsibility of eldership in the church.

    Churches that give deacons the function of ruling have overstepped the parameters of the Biblical concept of deaconing. At the same time, churches that relegate the office of deacon to the management of church property have grossly underestimated the scope of responsibility God intended for those who serve under this title.

  4. Trustees

    The word trustee is not found in scripture. It is not a Biblical title for an office in the church. It is a modern legal title referring to a person who is legally responsible to administer material property on behalf of someone else such as a charitable organization. Some states have laws requiring that all non-profit organizations within the state have a certain number of trustees who are legally responsible for the management of the material property possessed corporately by that organization.

    In Bible times, churches did not own property. The church met in the peoples homes. As the church prospered and gained freedom, it also began to accumulate property and wealth. The legal ramifications of owning property has in modern times caused the church to be grouped with other non-profit organizations as far as lawful regulation is concerned. When states began requiring legal trustees, some local churches began complying by designating their leaders with that title.

    While it may not be a spiritual responsibility, it certainly falls under the heading of good stewardship. In fact, there may be good reason for a local church to delegate this responsibility to men of good standing who can relieve both elders and deacons from the duties of this functional task of taking care of church property, freeing them to do the work of the ministry outlined in Scripture.

  5. The Congregation

    Where does the congregation fit into the framework of government within the local church? Is democracy a body of Christ concept? Is “one member – one vote” God’s order for deciding things or does Congregationalism mean something else? Congregationalism was one of the forms the church assumed as a result of the Reformation. It was based upon the belief that each congregation was free to choose its own pastor, determine its own policies, and manage its own affairs. This view was held by both Puritans (who wished to have this freedom locally while remaining in the state church) and Separatists (who preferred to be independent of any church organization).

    Biblically, Congregationalism may be viewed as the best possible way for a local church to express its being the body of Christ — the composite group of believers — one spiritual body consisting of many members (I Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 12:4-5). The question is whether God intended this to be carried over into governing or to be expressed only in spiritual activities. Both the I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 contexts are speaking of spiritual gifts not the process of making decisions in the church.

    The closest the Bible comes to relating the congregation to the act of governing is in Acts six. The apostle instructed the group to look ye out among you the men that we may appoint over this business. There is no other place in Scripture where a congregation was involved in a business like decision. All other governing was done first by the apostles, then by the apostles and elders together (Acts 15), then by their representatives like Timothy and Titus (Titus 1), and finally by the elders alone (Acts 20).

Understanding How These Elements Fit Together In the Church

There was a brief time I believed Congregationalism was the correct form of church government. I had changed my mind to think so because I reacted against abuses of power I witnessed by individuals in authority. I saw first hand the disservice this was to the people and the confusion and pain it caused among them. This view was short lived when I saw the other side and realized that there is as much potential for abuse in pure Congregationalism as there is in the other forms of church government. During congregational meetings, unelected members of the congregation can obtain the floor and control the flow of thought with their persuasive speech and their skills in manipulating the emotions of others. The result can be that some fast talking members of the congregation can actually control what decisions are made without having any elective authority. The group ends up thinking that it has decided things by a democratic process when in fact it has been duped by some very unspiritual people.

I learned that deciding which form of church government is correct cannot be based upon experience. It must be based upon truth. What does the Bible really teach?

From the observations that we have made in this article, the following truths must be considered: elders are given the oversight; deacons serve in both spiritual and practical ways but have no oversight authority; pastors are elders to whom God has given the spiritual gift of shepherding people; trustees are a modern innovation necessitated by the ownership of property; the congregation is the body of Christ which has a corporate spiritual function but no designated governing authority.

The true Biblical form of church government, therefore, probably resembles Presbyterianism more than any other, but naming it such is inadequate. Church administration is not human rulership over people but divine rulership through human agency. The church is a theocracy. Christ is the head, the ruler, the decision maker. He chooses members of His body for responsibility and intends for them to direct their activities toward the collective and individual needs of the rest of the body. He also intends for every member of the body to perform their assigned function, thus supplying all that is needed by the effectual working of every part (Ephesians 4:16).

Also, the success of church government depends upon the philosophy with which it is implemented. Success is not achieved by lording it over God’s heritage (I Peter 5:3) or through the traditions of men (Mark 7:13). It is accomplished through a willing heart and ready mind (I Peter 5:2; I Chronicles 28:9), through comfort and consolation (II Corinthians 1:6), through gentleness, patience, meek instruction (II Timothy 2:24-25) and a sense of responsibility to the Chief Shepherd (Hebrews 13:17) in maintaining the spiritual integrity of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16; II Corinthians 11:2).

Conclusion

No local church should be guilty by following a faulty system merely because it is the way they have always done things. No pastor or other individual should have unchecked executive authority. No elder should be confined to the duties of deaconing. No deacon should be given elder authority. Trustees should never be equivalent to elders or deacons. And, the congregation should never be viewed as a business corporation. None of these things are Biblical.

One factor that makes it difficult for Christians today to understand how a church ought to function is the matter of business versus ministry. There are so many business items upon which churches feel they must decide. Business items generally involve the expenditure of money or procedural policy on how things will be done. So much energy is being spent on these types of things that the members of a congregation have little energy left to do the real work of the church — ministry.

There may be times when the congregation needs to come together and talk about “things.” But if they would submit to the oversight of the elders as God instructed, choose some spirit-filled godly men to serve the welfare of the people as deacons, appoint others to manage the property as trustees and give their pastor the freedom to stick to pastoring, there just might be enough energy among the people in the pew to minister to one another as a body ought to do.

Furthermore, no congregation should resist conforming to Biblical guidelines because they are afraid a small group of people will seize control and impose irresponsible decisions upon them. God provided guidelines for dealing with the unruly, including unruly elders.

In addition, no local church should deprive itself of the benefits of having all the jobs filled that the Bible describes. Eldering, deaconing, pastoring and stewardship management are all necessary to the health of the body.

Finally, no local church should be guilty of not functioning as a spiritual body. Churches that accomplish something meaningful for the cause of Christ are those who understand they are not businesses, run by the majority opinion of the stock holders. Rather, they understand themselves to be spiritual bodies, governed by Christ, guided by human agencies within the body, and designed to do some mighty, spiritual works called ministry.

Church government, in fact, is less government than it is spiritual function. It is too bad that the language of the church has become entangled with the political philosophy of the secular world. What each local church needs to do is sort through all the political terminology, all the constitutional configurations, and all the ways “we have always done it” and ask itself the simple question, “What does the Bible say we ought to be doing?”

The Roots of Diversity

Literature, , , ,
A Perspective from Church History

by David E. Moss

Do you know how many denominations there are in the Church? Consider this. There are 27 Baptist denominations, 23 Methodist, 10 Presbyterian, 10 Brethren, 12 Lutheran, 12 Mennonite, 13 Pentacostal, 200 Churches of God, and countless others by a variety of names. This does not include all the independent churches of which there are nearly 100,000 independent Baptist churches, plus Bible Churches, Community Churches, and many other independent churches by various names. There are definite distinctions between each denomination and many more distinctions among the independents. Yet each uses the Bible and claims to believe the truth. Can there really be so much diversity within the truth?

Sectarianism goes back a long way. As a matter of fact, it began almost as soon as the church was born. Acts Chapter 15 records an official council which discussed one such division. In verse one of that chapter, certain men taught the brethren a particular doctrine. In verse two, Paul and Bamabas had no small dissension and disputation with them. The council attempted to focus everyone on the truth.

Variations in Christianity was a great concern from the beginning of the Church as evidenced in Paul’s letters. In Titus 1:11 some were teaching things which they ought not, and Titus was to stop them from doing so. Likewise, Timothy was admonished to charge some that they teach no other doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3). Dissension, however, reached such proportions that in the first 30 years of Christianity different Gospels could actually be identified as testified to in Galatians 1:6-7.

The concern, of course, was that the dividing of Christianity was occurring because of a departure from the truth. There really was not a flexibility in truth that allowed for so many differences to co-exist. When the truth was bent, it ceased to be truth. When truth was mixed with lies and grossly distorted, truth was changed and redefined, making it to be something other than the truth. Yet all the variations of the truth continued to claim identity with truth, even though they were contradictory in nature.

Multiply the process through nearly two thousand years. Today the church at large encourages a celebration of diversity as though that were something God intended to exist. This is hard to rectify though with the Scriptures that say , Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Corinthians 1:10).

By the year 300 A.D. there were already at least 100 identifiable sects of Christianity. Later in the middle ages, when the Roman Catholic Church developed a monopoly within Christianity, little was settled regarding truth in the Church because of Catholicism’s progressively changing dogma. When the Reformation burst upon Christendom, it opened a flood gate of sectarian theology. As a result, today “truth” is splintered into literally hundreds of thousands of diverse fragments. The search for truth in our day has become a staggering challenge.

In the following paragraphs, we will briefly examine the historical development of the church which has brought us to our schismatic present. Hopefully, this commentary on church history will help us to understand how we have gotten where we are. Beyond that, it is imperative that we gain a confidence in being able to sort out the real truth from the maze of doctrinal diversity in the church.

0, yes! The truth still exists in its pure form. Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). May our vision of Him take on a clearer focus in the following thoughts.

  1. Diversity From The Beginning

    Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. All those who receive Jesus into their lives receive the author of truth. They become part of his spiritual body and stewards of the truth which He proclaims (1 Timothy 3:15). It is sad, however, to observe how so many who claim to be attached to the truth can be so diverse in their understanding of it. This diversity began long ago.

    The adolescent church (A.D. 50-500) struggled to develop a sense of maturity. The Roman philosophy was that everything revolved around the state, including religion. Patriotism was number one in the Roman mind set. If a religion dissuaded its adherents from loyalty to the state, the religion was wrong. On the other hand, the church believed that all life revolved around its Saviour.

    Loyalty to God was number one in the Christian mind set. If a government forced its citizens to violate their Biblical convictions, then the government was wrong. This conflict produced a pseudo unity among believers in the early church as they all commonly suffered under state sponsored persecution. Even though definite differences were growing among believers, they did not gain much attention because of the conflict Christians shared. However, the dissension in these years laid the foundation for the splintering of the church later.

    In those first few centuries there were sound men of the faith. Clement, one of the first Bishops in Rome, wrote letters of exhortation to other churches. Ignatius (100-150 A.D.) was arrested for his faith and sent to Rome to die in the Arena. Polycarp (70-155 A.D.) had originally been a disciple of John. At age 86 he refused to deny Christ and was burned at the stake.

    There were others who were part of mainline Christianity but held different ideas. For example, Origen (185-250), who is considered one of the church fathers, allegorized Scripture and argued heavily against literal interpretation. He believed that Christianity was a philosophy that was buttressed with Scripture but rested on reason. He contributed greatly to the fragmenting of the church.

    Then there were those who were obviously of a non-Christian persuasion yet claimed to be Christian. Mani (216-276) believed perfection was the possession of pure light. Anything related to the material world was darkness. He promoted celibacy for all. Montanus believed that inspiration was immediate and continuous and therefore the Bible was incomplete. Two women of his group monitored doctrine through trances. Marcion believed that there were two Gods in the Bible. The Old Testament God was bad and the New Testament God was good.

    The Docetists believed Christ’s body was a phantom and that he had no real human flesh. On and on we could relate the increasingly more bizarre ideas of “Christians” even in the very early days. This really is not a modern problem. Yet always, as God promises, He preserves a remnant. As he says in Romans 11:5, Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

  2. Hiding The Truth

    By the year 300 A.D., the political attachment to paganism had died out in the Roman Empire. Philosophy among Roman Aristocracy helped to kill it and Christianity compounded the effort. However, the form of pagan religion remained with many temples still in technical operation.

    Politically, the Empire was weakening. Diocletion had organized the Empire but created such a bureacracy that it did not provide a sufficient foundation for continuing stability. A cleavage between the East and West segments grew in intensity.

    In an effort to draw the Romans back into a glorious union, Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the State. It was the type of relationship familiar to the Empire. The affairs of the throne and Senate were extensively interrelated with those of the temples to Roman gods. However, as the state weakened, it became increasingly more dependent upon the growing Church. Making Christianity the official state religion was supposed to help the Empire. What actually happened was that the Church absorbed the State and became the dominant factor of European history for centuries to come.

    It may appear that this is just where the church wanted to be. As masters of Europe it could witness for Christ without restraint. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Power and prosperity were detrimental to the growth of true spirituality. The Church of the Roman Empire had the opportunity to focus everyone on the truth. It had the wealth, the education, and the available means to teach all its citizens the Word of God. The potential was unlimited. And so it is hard to believe what actually happened. Instead of freely giving out God’s precious Word, the Ecclesiastical hierarchy closeted all the manuscripts of Scripture into Monasteries and Cathedrals and prevented all but a few isolated Monks and Priests from knowing anything about it. After hundreds of years of the truth being distorted, something worse occurred—it was hidden altogether.

  3. Institutionalizing the “Truth”

    The course of church history followed a definite pattern. In its infancy, the church had many new things to learn about itself. As it grew and developed through the second and third centuries, the church went through an adolescence during which there were many internal and external conflicts. When the church finally came of age as the state religion of the Roman Empire, there were many good things. There were strong leaders committed to Biblical excellence and an unprecedented opportunity to influence the whole European and Middle Eastern world with no strings attached.

    There seems to be, however, an unfortunate pattern in any group or organization. When it becomes established and resistance is all but eliminated, perspective is easily lost, and an institutionalization can set in which causes stagnation. This is exactly what happened to the church. Its leaders became so intoxicated with their ability to influence that they translated this into political power, rather than evangelistic influence. In 800 A.D. the Bishop of Rome laid the crown upon the head of Charlemagne and thus established the supremacy of the church over the state. During the next 600 years there would be a dramatic struggle between prelate and noble to determine who had the right to grant existence to the other. (There are still elements of this conflict evident in our American society.)

    The church, with the assistance of feudalism, put European society to sleep. Education took place only inside monastery walls. The activities of nobles consisted primarily of fighting each other or resisting invasion from the North. Life expectancy was about 35 to 40 and little changed in the way people lived from 600 A.D. to 1200 A.D.

  4. Fighting For Survival

    When one reflects upon these dark years, he may wonder what can be learned from such a time. How could God allow such corruption and complete deviation from what He intended? How could He tolerate the unethical and immoral behavior of those who were responsible for his spiritual body on earth?

    Here is where we need to develop a deeper appreciation for the mercies of God. When Scripture says that God is not slack concerning his promise but is longsuffering to us-ward, the word long is suspended in a time warp that allows God to be extremely tolerant of our foolishness. During that time warp He spends unlimited energy in an attempt to bring us to our knees and to a renewed understanding of the truth.

    In God’s mercy, this is just what he did with the Church. He created a just cause in which it could struggle in the Crusades and rediscover its dependency upon God. He opened the eyes of faithful men and gave them the courage to stand for truth – in many cases at the expense of their own earthly lives. He awakened the human soul to the reality of sin and death and hell and brought conviction that generated a confession and reception of salvation through justification by faith.

    The Crusades are one of the most curious aspects of Church History. They consisted of military invasions conducted by European Kings and nobles against the Moslems occupying the Holy Land. The participants of the Crusades never fulfilled their original purpose, to liberate the Land of Israel from Moslem domination. However, something of far greater significance resulted from this 275 year campaign. Instead of preserving medieval Christianity in the land of Palestine, the buttresses of this form of Christianity were completely knocked down and the political and spiritual personality of Europe was totally transformed.

    Militarism was the sum total of European political thought through the dark ages. Chivalry would come later, but in A.D. 1000, knights sang more love songs to their swords than they did to their ladies. The leader of the church, Urban, thought it wise to direct this aggression toward an outside subject before Europe lay in total ruin from constant in-fighting. The Moslems had been a threat to European security for several hundred years. They would be the logical target. Urban created such enthusiasm for the cause that in 1096 A.D. a large mass of peasants marched from France to Palestine, poorly armed and poorly organized. The group was brutally massacred by the Moslems. While there were some military victories for the crusaders later on, this first failure represents the haphazard manner in which most of the Crusade campaigns were conducted.

    There were many consequences of the Crusades. One of them, however, was more of a blessing than a problem. While Europe had been intellectually dark for more than half a millennium, the middle east and northern Africa prospered. The Christian soldiers from England, France, Germany and Italy were exposed to this advanced culture during the Crusades and the European human soul was awakened by it.

    In the appearance of things, the Christians soldiers of the Crusades fought against the Moslems. But in the heart of these enduring campaigns, they fought just as much against their own enslavement to feudalism. The church had become just as intensely feudalistic as European society was. A personal relationship with Christ was hidden in the shadows of a history largely unknown to us today. Everyone who called himself a Christian in Europe was held subservient to religious lords who neither knew Christ nor cared if anyone else did. But once the human soul was awakened, it realized that there must be more to the Christian experience. The stage was silently set for the birth of men like Peter Waldo, John Huss, John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther. Through these and others, truth would be rediscovered and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through faith alone would be returned to the people.

    We Christians today take this freedom for granted. This freedom to exercise faith in God alone, apart from ritual, penance and indulgence, is far more precious than we realize. The Holy Scriptures say, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast, and whosoever will may come (Ephesians 2:8-9; Revelation 22:17).

Conclusion

No matter what men attempt to do with God’s truth, whether they change it, bend it, distort it, or hide it, it will always resurface in clarity and power. When the truth finally reemerged again many hundreds of years later, there came with it a renewed conviction of the sinfulness of man’s heart and his need to be saved through faith in the Gospel of Christ.

God has declared that His Word is alive. Men will never be able to affect it, but it will always effect men. It will dissect and convict and then heal. God’s Word, the Truth, is deserving of our faith. Let us give ourselves to the Truth without reservation, and allow its full effect to impact our lives.

By knowing what those who have gone before us have had to endure, let us learn to appreciate the blessing each of us possesses in our personal relationship with the Saviour. Let us not fail, by neglect, to show Christ our appreciation. Show Him by walking with him faithfully every day. Praise God we can know that we are saved. Praise that there have always been those who have known that they were saved. Praise God that the truth has been preserved through all the turmoil of church history. It is preserved for us in the Holy Scriptures. Let us not allow our hearts to wander from it.

While we look at the history of the church as a movement, we may also look at the movement of our own lives through stages of development. Being honest with ourselves we will be able to identify dark days in which we have been less than faithful. But for the mercy of God, where would we be. Before we give up on those who are going through dark spiritual days in their lives, let us remember the long night of the institutionalized Church and let us remember the bleakness of our own experience. In each case remember also that God did not leave us, nor forsake His church but in time brought hope, and joy, and life through faith. Let us allow ourselves to be the instruments that God may use to bring these things to others.

Counting Our Blessings

Counting our blessings is good practice.

  1. It makes us get along with people better.
  2. It makes us look around us instead of within us.
  3. It makes us more considerate, sympathetic.
  4. It causes us to live for others, not ourselves.
  5. It makes us a blessing instead of a burden.
  6. It corrects our perspective of life.
  7. It strengthens our inner resources of faith and hope.
  8. It increases our confidence for living.
  9. It increases our awareness of God.

The Branches of Diversity

Last month we considered some thoughts from Church History regarding the roots of diversity. Those roots came from the very beginning of the Church when men who called themselves Christians took many different paths of doctrinal persuasion. One would think that the natural result of this would have been the prevalence of denominationalism very early in the history of the church. In fact, the opposite occurred. A powerful centralized authority suppressed sectarianism among Christians and brought most of the active church under one “roof” – The Roman Catholic Church.

Again, one would think that the influence of one, unified, strong church would stabilize church doctrine and bring a period of unprecedented enlightenment to the world. However, with the institutionalization of the church came also a stagnation of spirituality and a progressive departure from sound biblical doctrine. Through the period of the dark ages, there were not many denominations diverse from one another, but the centralized Roman Church became increasingly diverse within itself from biblical truth. For example, it was in 593 A.D. that the church declared purgatory to be an official doctrine. In 754 A.D. the Pope claimed the right of civil authority in Italy as well as ecclesiastical authority. In 847 A.D., forged documents were used to establish the authority of bishops. This included such things as 72 witnesses being required to condemn a bishop, immunity from prosecution for bishops before secular tribunals, and the prohibition of a cleric from ever bringing an accusation against his superior in the church. In 858 A.D., the bishop of Rome as successor of Peter was established as having authority over all the bishops in the world. He was also given the right to wear an imperial crown and a purple cloak. In 1075 A.D., all marriages of the clergy were declared invalid and all preachers were required to divorce their wives. In 1100 A.D., the practice was established of giving money to a priest for the performance of a mass on behalf of individuals. By the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, the authority of the Bible had been replaced with the authority of church tradition and the infallibility of the Pope. Justification by faith had been replaced with salvation by works. Transubstantiation, the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, replaced the finished work of Christ. Confession to men replaced confession directly to God. The veneration of saints and the adoration of relics replaced the invisible Spirit. And, ceremony replaced the sermon. It was inevitable that there would eventually be a reaction against such ecclesiastical and theological corruption. That reaction came in the form of the reformation. Unfortunately, the reformation did not only result in freeing men’s soul’s from the bondage of Catholicism, but also further contributed to the diversification of doctrinal beliefs.

  1. Events Leading Up To The Reformation

    The nations of Europe for many hundreds of years were fragmented fuedalistic lands. They did not exist in well defined countries as we know them today. As the Crusades intensified and waned, the influence Europeans received from their encounter with the east led the French, German, Italian, Spanish, and English people to develop a sense of nationalism and submit themselves to centralized governments. This political break from the Holy Roman Empire encouraged the Europeans to nationalize their religion as well. As native-son Churchmen began to speak independently of the church in Rome, many found guaranteed protection by their King and compatriots. Along with the political influence of the east came an exposure to culture that had been hidden from Europeans for centuries. The revival of culture in Europe during the period before the reformation became known as the Renaissance. In southern Europe, primarily in Italy, this was expressed through a revival of the arts. In northern Europe, it was expressed more in the revival of literature and language. The ancient manuscripts of the Greek and Hebrew Bible were brought out of their closets and studied directly, giving renewed insight into biblical truth. Then came the printing press. With this amazing invention, came the innovative idea of translating the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew directly into the language of the people and giving the average man an opportunity to read the Bible for himself.

    The Renaissance was accompanied with another important movement – The Age of Reason. For centuries, the masses were discouraged from thinking for themselves. They were told that a blind faith in the teachings of the church was all they needed. But as nationalism spread, culture was revived, and a new middle class of skilled workers began to emerge, education and free thinking also found a renewed place in the human soul. This meant that men no longer simply accepted what the Roman Catholic Church Priests taught them, but they began to think and meditate upon the Word of God directly which resulted in a widespread transformation of men’s faith.

    Other reasons for the Reformation were both practical and doctrinal. In light of the requirement for clerical celibacy, there were excesses of immorality among the priests. This made the Church unbelievable. Indulgences had become church taxes which were draining local monies from newly formed European national treasuries. By the time people paid the Church, they had nothing left for the King. This broke a sense of allegiance to the church and a rechanneling of resources to local civil government. Then, when the printing press made the Scriptures available to many people who never before had seen them personally, people were no longer dependent upon the official Church to tell them what the Bible was saying. The Word of God did its work in their hearts and changed their lives and the course of religious history.

    The lesson of the Reformation is a simple one. Only the Word of God gives life and hope and peace to men. Organizations and men’s traditions are only useful when they are servants of God’s Word. Tradition which supercedes the Word of God is dangerous. Full well ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered and many such like things do ye (Mark 7:9-13). But when a man’s heart is exposed to the actual words of Scripture, it is inevitable that a dynamic impact and change occur. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (II Tim. 3:16-17).

    The Scriptures are clear. Let them speak to our hearts. May we learn from those who broke from the cocoon of darkness and realized first hand the wonderful impact of God’s Word.

  2. The Men Of The Reformation

    In the Reformation, personalities stand out just as strongly as doctrine. There were Luther and Menno Simons in Germany, Zwingli and Calvin in Switzerland, and John Knox in Scotland, among many others. Of all the eras since Christ, the 16th Century has been perhaps the most saturated by great human minds. What makes these men so outstanding that the vibrations from their lives can still be felt four hundred and fifty years later?

    For one thing, they were all sincere in their desire to know the truth. Each man mentioned above was a priest or monk in the established church of his day. They studied in the Seminaries (universities) and were taught the “accepted” theology. For many hundreds of years, the infallibility of Church doctrine stood unchallenged. But in the hearts of these men and others arose the conviction that Scripture was superior to organization and man-made policy. They adopted as their motto the declaration of Christ, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

    Luther was freed from ascetic bondage in realizing the just shall live by faith. Menno Simons was freed from the loneliness of a monastery by realizing the importance of genuine spiritual fellowship. John Knox experienced the joy of revival as he learned to preach dynamically and to centralize the Word of God in the ministry. All of the Reformers were victorious because they were willing to stand alone for the truth when necessary.

    Unfortunately, their efforts at rescuing the church from doctrinal corruption were less than perfect. Instead of pooling their energies in the rediscovery of biblical truth, they often viewed each other as competitors and allowed their disagreements to keep them apart. Consequently, when much of the church was freed from Roman Catholic doctrinal divergence, it did not simply return to the truth, but splintered into multiple variations, and the diversity that was rooted in the beginning of the church came to full bloom in the Reformation and its aftermath.

    For example, Martin Luther not only taught justification by faith, but also taught consubstantiation – a variation from the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, in which Luther said that the elements of communion maintained their natural substance, but the presence of Christ in the elements was none the less very real and grace was obtained in partaking of them. John Calvin defined the doctrines of election and predestination to mean that man had no choice in his salvation, but that the sovereign God made that choice for him in that Christ died only for the elect who were selected by God Himself before the foundation of the world. The rest of mankind had no hope of being saved since Christ did not die for them. Jacob Arminius countered with the teaching that salvation was so much by the free will of man that man’s wayward will could also cause him to lose his salvation. Zwingli became a passionate militant who actually led Protestants in military battles and died from wounds received in one such venture. Menno Simons on the other hand encouraged passivism and nonviolence even when personally attacked. He also taught that material possessions were dangerous, leading his followers into a plain and humble lifestyle free of personal adornments.

  3. Circumstances Following The Reformation

    The Reformation did restore the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. But what happened after the dust settled from the great struggle required to bring about reformation to church? The two key words of Church History since the Reformation are “diversity” and “divergence.”

    Because the Reformation involved several outstanding personalities spread over a politically fragmented European Continent, the reforming effect was one of great diversity. Diversity has always been part of the experience of the Body of Christ. In diversity there can be unity through balance. However, diversity can easily be translated into divergence. Diversity gave men of different personalities to the church such as Paul and Peter and Apollos. But as in the church at Corinth, the personalities of these men became catalysts to divergence – a drawing apart which has the potential of resulting in corrupting change. The book of 1 Corinthians was written to prevent such a thing from happening. It helped in the first century, but not in the 16th century or since. In Germany there were the Lutherans and Anabaptists. In Switzerland there were the Presbyterians. In Great Britain there were the Anglicans, Puritans and Separatists which respectively correspond to the American Episcopalians, Congregationalists, and Baptists. At first, these various groups portrayed what appeared to be a healthy diversity in the church. From this, however, there continued to be an unrelenting fragmentation and unfortunate divergence from the truth.

    From John Calvin and the Reformed Movement came the Presbyterians, the Scottish Reformed, the Dutch Reformed, the Swiss Reformed and the Congregationalists. In future generations of these Reformed Churches have come such groups as the Bible Presbyterian, the Churches of Christ, the Church of God, and the United Church of Christ, from which also came the Unitarians.

    From the Anabaptists came the Mennonites, the Amish, the Brethren in Christ, the Moravians, the Church of the Brethren and in some degree the Seventh Day Adventists.

    From Lutheranism has come several Lutheran denominations and the Evangelical Free Church.

    From Anglicanism (the Church of England) has come Plymouth Brethren, Protestant Episcopalians, and Methodists. From the Methodists has come the Wesleyan Church, the Salvation Army, the Church of God in Christ, the Church of the Nazarene, and the entire Pentecostal and Holiness movements.

    From the original four or five major groups that emerged out of the Reformation, there have been the beginning of so many denominations and independent churches that it is almost impossible to keep track of them all, or to decipher all of the diversity of doctrinal persuasions that have resulted.

    Several factors influenced this course of events. After each of the major Reformation participants settled into their own habits and liturgical philosophy, they developed a comfortableness that caused them to lose a sense of appreciation for redemption. In society there emerged a movement of “Rationalism” which only served to discredit the spiritual reality of faith. Consequently, those who practice the most involved religious rituals today seem to have a very low level of consciousness of the holiness of God and the redemptive value of Jesus Christ.

    There are lessons to be learned from the history of the Church. Diversity is good. Divergence is bad. Diversity provides balance. Divergence destroys the purity of true Christianity. In our own local church we must recognize the value of diversity, similar to that of Paul and Apollos and Cephas in 1 Corinthians. In spite of all their differences, they contributed equally to the production of real fruit in men’s lives. But in our own local church there is no room for divergence. There is no room for encouraging specialized groups which will dwell upon some corrupted or exaggerated notion that moves people away from the purity of God’s Word and the reality of Christ. There is no room for setting the ideas of man above the wisdom of God. There is no room for false doctrine or foolish questions or foolish genealogies or perverse disputings of men. Scripture says, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness (I Tim. 6:11).

    The Church is not divided into micro-groups because of wholesome diversity but because of carnal divergence from the truth. Again Scripture says, for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (I Cor. 3:3).

    We can be different in the unique character development that God gives to each of us. That kind of diversity can provide a wonderful balance to the Church and its program. Simply being different does not require division. However, when our differences are defined by divergence from the truth we have a horse of a different color. The purity of Christ and His righteousness must never be compromised through conflicting views of the truth.

Conclusion

Can the Church of the 20th century learn any lessons from the divergent paths of the church throughout its history? It should. Once again we have fallen into a complacency of accepting what is fed us without personally verifying its veracity. Too many professing Christians are just listening to the preaching of others through sermons and books and music and not investigating the Word themselves. It is so easy to believe that modern day Christianity has been successful in defining theological truth once and for all. But such complacency prevents us from appreciating the necessity to personally study the Scriptures and discover the truth for ourselves. We say, “why reinvent the wheel?” The danger is that such apathy towards personal Bible study may result in another dark ages in which the average Christian not only does not study the Bible, but does not know how to do so.

While there are many things in life that are contagious, that is, involuntarily transferred from one individual to another, truth is not. It must be purposely ingested by each individual for its effects to be experienced. II Timothy 2:15 says, Study to show THYSELF approved. There are many communicable diseases. For example, our society is at present bracing against the dreaded Aids for which there is apparently no cure. But the disease can be passed from one person to another. No one seeks such a disease, but many become its victims. Would to God that we could be the victims of Truth. It would be so much easier that way. Unfortunately, we can never possess the truth against our will or obtain it without seeking it. We must pursue the truth with a passion and actively submit ourselves to God so that His Holy Spirit may guide us into all truth.

May we prevent the corruption of truth and the need for another Reformation by confirming the Truth through our own personal investigation of God’s Word. Romans 15:4 says, For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

The wonderful thing about finding the truth is that when we do, we will also find other believers with whom we will be in perfect harmony. In the truth, there is no diversity. It is absolute and unchangeable. Therefore, when many people come to the same truth, they come together and are joined in an unbreakable unity. In that unity, we may find a marvelous diversity of personalities and people from many varied backgrounds. But the truth will bring a shared sameness to our hearts that will reflect the glory of God Himself.