Date post: | 21-Feb-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | chris-mabee |
View: | 147 times |
Download: | 0 times |
The Bioi-‐Narrative Witness of the Luke-‐Acts Sequence in Church Polity: a Presbyterian Primer Christopher L. Mabee #620558
TEDS, Columbus Extension: NT 5100-‐53 The Acts of the Apostles: Dr. Joshua W. Jipp
There is much that has been gained by the church from thoughtfully engaging the
biographical-‐narrative witness of Luke-‐Acts. For all churches, that hold the Bible in high
esteem, have used it as a paradigm for their governance, which is the purpose of this work.
However, at the outset, it seems right to me to acknowledge that my own natural, sinful,
tendency is to take what I find in sacred Scripture and use it to advocate my own
presuppositions.1 This eisegetical method, or reading into Scripture that which we believe
at the outset of its study, undermines the true exegetical intensions of God the Holy Spirit,
and the power of Jesus Christ in the inaugurated kingdom of God, in rightly handling the
Word. Therefore, before I conclude regarding what model(s) seem to be advocated
through the transformative witness of Jesus Christ, and his emissaries, as reported in the
historical narrative of Luke-‐Acts, I must first engage in a discussion about how we rightly
come to a ‘theology’ of this section of Scripture based on genre and authorial intent.
Following an intimate appraisal of the Scriptural witness of Luke-‐Acts, and my
interpretation of it, I will then, as a means of comparison, broadly review the history of
church polity from the late first century to the present, and offer a critique of Presbyterian
polity with practical reflection in a 21st century context.
Getting our Bearing: The Theology of the Luke-Acts Sequence
To render a proper theology of the Luke–Acts sequence the kerygmatic intention of the
author must be embodied in the reader as to explicate the epistemological, existential, and
theological claims that the bioi-‐narrative makes.2 In simpler terms, in order to get to the
Holy Spirit’s intended and transformative meaning of the text, we must holistically enter
into the world of Jesus, and the first century church, and become part of its storyline. But
before we access its pages, in an attempt to discern its prescriptive witness for church
governance, we must first review its construct and genre.
1 We are all guilty of eisegesis to some degree and use the Scriptures, ‘Much like a drunk uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination’. Paraphrasing the Scottish poet Andrew Lang, see Helm, David, Contextualization, in Expositional Preaching, Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois, 60187, 2014, pg.24. 2 Paraphrased from, Jipp, Joshua W., The Beginnings of a Theology of Luke-Acts: Divine Activity and Human Response, in Journal of Theological Interpretation 8.1, 2014, pg. 23.
2
At the outset of a study of the book of Acts we need first understand that it is written as
a sequence, and as such should be read with, and in light of, a knowledge of the author’s
first book, the Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-‐4 cf. Acts 1:1). While there is not time here to go
into all the supportive details of this supposition, we will assume that the author of both
Luke and Acts is Paul’s traveling companion, Luke, the physician (see 1st person plural
statements in Acts 16:10-‐12; 20:6-‐16; 21:1-‐17; 27:1-‐8, 16, 20, 26, 37 and 28:1, 11, 15 and
Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11).
The Gospel of Luke is biographical in scope; it is a historical narrative account of the
birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the protagonist of the story.
While it is appropriate to call Luke’s Gospel account, a ‘biography’, it is more precise to
understand it as an ancient, theological, historical biography (bioi) in genre, which affects
our reading and comprehension of it.3 The Gospels are ‘bioi plus’ or, ‘eschatological,
kerygmatic, biblical, historical biographies’ in which we find the proclamation of Jesus as
fulfillment of the promised return of the reign of the kingdom of God.4,5 This sui generis is
transformative in its witness as the reader enters into the storyline and attempts to
emulate and embody the main character, Jesus. To understand the text is to understand
oneself before the text. The implication is that the reader of the Gospel does not submit
the meaning of the text to their own preconceived and finite capacity of understanding, but
lets himself or herself be exposed to the text in order to receive the ‘thing’ of the text—
Jesus Christ.6 This requires the reader to put aside their presuppositional worldview and
enter the world and ministry of Jesus Christ, the God man, in the inaugurated kingdom of
God and be transformed.
3 There are four main ways in which understanding the Gospels as ancient, theological, historical biographies should affect our reading. They are bioi or ancient biographies that: 1. Mix chronological and topical elements unexpectedly; 2. Value interested, involved witnesses and were written for polemical, apologetic and hortatory reasons; 3. Present their protagonist as one to be emulated and 4. Are written as instruments of transformation. ‘The crucial difference between ancient and modern biographies is why we often refer to the Greco-‐Roman biographies as bioi, to help maintain this difference and prevent confusion.’ Pennington, Jonathan T., What are the Gospels? In Reading the Gospels Wisely: a Narrative and Theological Introduction, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49516, 2012, pg 31. 4 Ibid, pg. 34-‐35. 5 What then are the Gospels? They are the theological, historical, and aretological (virtue forming) biographical narratives that retell the story and proclaim the significance of Jesus Christ, who through the power of the Holy Spirit is the restorer of God’s kingdom. Strauss, Mark, Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49516, pg. 27-‐29. 6 Paraphrased from Ricoeur, P., Philosophical Hermeneutics, 30.
3
What then are some of the particulars that characterize the Gospel according to Luke?
The Jesus of Luke’s Gospel is the salvific, eschatological, Davidic King who came to
‘proclaim the good news/εὐαγγελίζω’ of the kingdom of God. Ten times this verb appears
in Luke’s Gospel, spanning the entire book. The verb is noted at the outset of John the
Baptist’ ministry, as his sentinel proclaims God’s impending visitation through Jesus (Luke
3:18). At the beginning of Jesus Christ’ earthly ministry, after paraphrasing Isaiah 61:1-‐2,
58:6 and Leviticus 25:10 (Luke 4:18-‐19) in the synagogue in Nazareth, He authenticates
His identity as the Messiah in the fulfillment of the Scriptures quoted (Luke 4:21). In this
way, Luke frames Jesus ministry as the Spirit-‐empowered, joy-‐bringing, burden-‐lifting,
captive-‐freeing message that ‘the favorable year of the Lord’ has come—the restoration of
God’s ways and reign on earth.7 Later on, after going down to Capernaum, Jesus states, ‘it
is necessary for me to preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other
towns/ταῖς έτέραις πόλεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαί με δεῖ τἠν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke 4:43).
This theme is programmatic for Luke and carried forward into the developing church in
his second volume, Acts. To Luke, it was necessary for Jesus to come, minister, proclaim,
be crucified and be raised from death. His use of δεῖ/it is necessary, emphasizes God’s
sovereignty in all of redemptive history including the suffering and passion of Jesus and
the hardships and sacrifices of His subsequent representatives in the book of Acts.8 The
theme of the proclamation of the inaugurated kingdom of God is pervasive throughout his
Gospel through the words of Jesus, and as we will see, throughout the book of Acts,
following His ascension and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, through His emissaries.
Therefore, to rightly read the Gospel of Luke and, subsequently, his sequential writing in
the book of Acts, this kingdom reality with Jesus Christ as the reigning king must be the
cornerstone of our transformation.
7 ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor’ (Luke 4:18-‐19 cf. Isaiah 61:1-‐2; 58:6 and Leviticus 25:10), idem (reference 2), pg. 14. 8 This theme of God’s sovereignty is carried over in the book of Acts where δεῖ is used an additional 22 times. In Luke’s Gospel the word is used 18 times. See Thompson, Alan J., Living ‘between the times’: the kingdom of God, in: The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus, Inter Varsity Press, USA, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515, 2011, pg. 30.
4
The book of Acts, in contrast, while historical narrative in genre, is not biographical, per
se, of Jesus’ life on earth (with the exception of Acts 1:1-‐11).9 So how are we to derive
meaning from this narrative-‐discourse genre and employ it prescriptively to govern the
church? Some have attempted to use any description found in its pages as a prescription
for church governance. Others have suggested that the entire book is descriptive of the
early church and the authorial intent for prescription should be limited to those narrative
themes repeated or emphasized rhetorically.10 While this paradigm may be expedient for
church management in the 21st century it fails to fully recognize the power of Jesus Christ
through His Spirit in the inaugurated kingdom of God which is transformative of the
regenerate reader of Acts as he enters its world and pours through the pages. For the
main subject matter of the book of Acts is God, who is not silent, but who has intervened
covenantally in history to fulfill the promises he made to Abraham, Moses and David for
the salvation of the world. In this way, the historical narrative of Acts makes a ‘totalizing
claim on every reader’ and immerses them into the world of which they read, demanding
decision, action and tranformation.11 For the book of Acts, as biblical, historical narrative,
makes meaning when the reader enters into a dialogue with the text and responds to its
discourse by reflecting on the ‘fit’ between his world and the world projected by the
text.12
Broadly speaking then, the book of Acts is to be interpreted through a framework of
covenantal fulfillment and inaugurated eschatology.13 That is, Luke’s intention is to teach
us about the kingdom of God, which was inaugurated through King Jesus at His
9 This statement is only partially true as the book of Acts continues the redemptive storyline of Jesus Christ’ salvific rule and direction in the inaugurated kingdom of God from heaven, which began, for the author of Luke-‐Acts, in the Messiah’s early ministry (Acts 1:1-‐11). In this way, the book of Acts is a bioi historical narrative in genre, and could perhaps be more precisely titled, ‘The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus’. Ibid, pg. 19-‐20,49. 10 There are a number of rhetorical methods which Luke uses to emphasize the activity of the early church by repetition: patterns or parallelism (Peter and Paul), summary statements (Acts 2:47; 6:7; 9:31;12:24; 16:5;19:20; 28:30-‐31), narration of major events (Cornelius, Acts 10-‐11; the Jerusalem Council, 15:7-‐9; Saul’s conversion, 9:1-‐31, 22:1-‐21, 26:12-‐18; the sharing of resources, 2:42-‐47, 4:32-‐37; terms such as, temple, name, teaching, our fathers; frames and inclusios (kingdom referents, Acts 1:3,6 and 28:23,31); and contrasting themes, etc. Ibid, Introduction, pg.26-‐27. 11 Root, Michael, The Narrative Structure of Soteriology, in Why Narrative? Readings in Narrative Theology, Wipf & Stock, Eugene, Oregon, 1997, pg. 266. 12 Ibid, reference 2, pg. 23-‐44. 13 Ibid, reference 8, The promise of the Father: the gift of the Holy Spirit, pg.125.
5
resurrection and ascension, and further manifested through the power and ministry of the
Holy Spirit in the people of God. Throughout the book of Acts, the narrative tells the
informed reader that Jesus Christ is reigning in His kingdom from the right hand of God.
He directs, as He builds His kingdom and church, between His ascension and return,
through the Holy Spirit who indwells His people, empowering them to proclaim the truth
of the Gospel and to ‘act’ to restore and reconcile Israel and the world to God. Thus, a
theological engagement of the text (Luke-‐Acts), that witnesses to divine acts that claim to
define our life, and even that of all of human history, cannot remain at the level of pure
description but must, rather, demonstrate how God’s acts have reconfigured our lives and
world. For the text invites its readers to undergo a mental and dispositional
transformation, whereby their narrative world is realigned with the things that God has
done and prescribes.14
Jesus Christ Governs His Inaugurated Kingdom: Luke-Acts as Historical Narrative
As we have seen, the Luke-‐Acts sequence is a bioi-‐historical narrative about the
sovereign activity of God in the ministry, resurrection and subsequent superintendence of
Jesus Christ, through His emissaries, in the eschatological, inaugurated kingdom of God.
From the outset of his Gospel writing, Luke makes clear that God is in control of history.
To Luke, God is the keeper of His covenantal promises to our fathers and has visited and
redeemed His people in the way of peace and salvation through Jesus (Mary’s Magnificat ,
Luke 1:46-‐55 cf. Zechariah’s Benedictus, Luke 1:68-‐79).15 Jesus remains in control of the
14 Jipp, Joshua W., The Beginnings of a Theology of Luke-Acts: Divine Activity and Human Response, in Journal of Theological Interpretation 8.1 (2014), pg. 23-‐44. This should be required reading for this course. 15 From the beginning to end of his corpus, Luke view of all of redemptive history, and God’s special revelation to His people, is covenantal in framework. So what is Luke referring to? In an attempt to be brief, in Covenant Theology, there are 3 covenants. The first is the Covenant of Redemption between the Godhead before the beginning of time in which God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit plan to create, redeem and adopt a people, as a bride, for Christ (Ephesians 1:3-‐14). The Father plans, the Son promises to become incarnate, live a sinless life, and suffer punishment and death to atone for the sins of His people as He is vindicated at the 0create in the heart of man faith (cf. John 15:26 for double procession). The Covenant of Works was between God and Adam and Eve and their posterity. In it, God promised them life to the fullest, and communion with Him, if they would not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil for if they did they would surely die (Genesis 1:16-‐17 cf. Hosea 6:7). Following their disobedience, having then made themselves incapable of life by that covenant, God, knowing beforehand in his transcendence that Adam and Eve would be deceived and fall, was pleased to condescend to make a second covenant with mankind commonly known as the Covenant of Grace (Westminster Confession of Faith, WCF, chapter 7, Christian Education & Publications, 2007, pg.30-‐31). In this covenant, God sets forth to redeem His people from their sin through the blood of the God man, Jesus Christ, His son. This is first exposited in Scripture in the Protoevangelium
6
events of the church following His ascension to the right hand of the Father, but the
faithful Christians participate in the execution of His plan by the power of the indwelling
Spirit.16 But we also see tacit evidence of the sovereignty of God, after Jesus’ ascension and
yet prior to the outpouring of the Spirit, in the description of Judas’ apostolic replacement
through the casting of lots (see Matthias in Acts 1:20-‐26 cf. Luke 22:30; Psalm 69:23 and
109:8). Throughout the book of Acts, Luke explicitly states or implies the sovereign
control of the Godhead in the activities, outcomes, building and governance of the
developing church of Jesus Christ. The physical and metaphysical manifestations of Christ’
reign in His inaugurated kingdom, and the requisite, continued, programmatic
proclamation of the Gospel and empowerment by the Holy Spirit of His representatives,
are lives transformed and worldviews changed (Acts 2:42-‐47; 4:32-‐37; 8:35-‐38; 9:1-‐31;
10:44-‐48; 13:48; 16:14-‐15; 16:32-‐35; 17:34; 19:17-‐20). But this redemption and
restoration for the believing church does not go without conflict, both from without and
from within. However, Jesus Christ continues to ‘Act’, on behalf of the church, and
(Genesis 3:15) and is a continuous theme throughout the remainder of special revelation. Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant, (Genesis 12,15,17; Exodus 2:24; 6:4-‐5), Mosaic/Sinaitic Covenant, (Exodus 19-‐24 and Deuteronomy), Davidic Covenant, (2 Samuel 7:12-‐23 cf. Paul in Antioch Pisidia, Acts 13:26-‐41) and New Covenant/καινή διαθήκη, (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:15-‐28 cf. Jeremiah 30:22; 31:31-‐33; 32:38; Ezekiel 14:11; 34:30; 36:28; 37:23,27, etc) are all, accordingly then, not disparate covenantal themes, promises or testaments, but part of the unified Covenant of Grace (I found Dr. Vos ‘ dichotomization helpful: Covenant of Works—pre-‐redemptive special revelation and Covenant of Grace—redemptive special revelation, see Vos, Geerhardus in Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, Banner of Truth Trust, 2007, pg.23-‐25 and Glossary). God ties these together, for our edification and encouragement, in the book of Acts, through Peter’s Sermon and discourse on Solomon’s portico (Acts 2:14-‐36 and 3:14-‐26, respectively); Stephen’s speech before the council (Acts 7:2-‐53 cf. Deuteronomy 18:15-‐18), Paul’s speech at Antioch Pididia (Acts 13:16-‐41, see especially v. 17 and 26 for references to Abraham, and the whole passage itself as an obvious correlation with the Davidic and Mosaic covenants), Paul before Felix (Acts 24:14-‐15), Paul before Agrippa II (Acts 26:6-‐29 cf. Luke 24:26-‐27, 45-‐48) and Paul in Rome (Acts 28:23-‐31). While Luke in Acts 13:16-‐41, perhaps the most detailed passage in this regard, does not cite any of the fore mentioned covenantal proof texts, the Psalms and major and minor prophets, which are quoted in this passage, are robust in their witness of Jesus as the coming Messiah, as God had promised in His Covenant of Grace (see also Luke 24:27; Acts 7:52; 8:35; 24:14-‐15; 26:22-‐23 and Acts 13:23,27,32 cf. Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 55:3, Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 29:14 and Habbakuk 1:5, in the sequence of Paul’s speech in the passage in Acts 13). 16 We observe a continuum of God’s sovereign control over the events of redemptive history as Luke transitions from Jesus’ crucifixion to His resurrection and subsequent reign following His ascension. For example, Jesus predicts his reign from the right hand of God, Luke 22:69; Jesus commissions the disciples as witnesses to proclaim repentance and release from sin, Luke 24:47-‐49; Jesus continues what he ‘began’ (continuous aspect in Greek) in the kingdom during His ministry (Acts 1:1-‐3); predicts the coming of His promised power in the Spirit (Acts 1:5); baptizes His representatives with the Holy Spirit, (Acts 2:4) and converses about His covenantal fulfillment of the Scriptures and the purpose of the Spirit’s outpouring (Peter’s sermon, Acts 2:14-‐36).
7
intervene through the illumination and empowerment of the Holy Spirit in His chosen
people and through their prayers.17
Jesus continues to guide and direct the building of the church through the selection and
empowerment of His emissaries or officers, with His Spirit, to carry on the proclamation of
the Gospel in both Word and deed, defending and building His church over time.18 Time
and again, we see this alternating pattern of external and internal conflict as the
proclamation of the Gospel goes out with power. But as the narrative-‐discourse
continues, we begin to encounter particular narratives that seem to more directly
converse with prescriptive patterns that God uses to indirectly manage the conflicts at the
local, regional and national level.
In Acts 6:1-‐7 we find the first evidence of the election of church officers.19 We have
previous evidence of apostolic election, as we have seen, however, the explicit criteria for
this office render it closed to new membership, given the characteristics that are listed in
Acts 1:20-‐26. It is important to note here that while the ‘seven’ Greek men were chosen by
the common disciples of the church, they were ordained and commissioned by the
apostles, and in that way affirmed by Christ. This ‘ground up’ process gives all the saints a
voice in the direction of the church and provides a model for church polity and officer
election. The ‘praying and laying on of their hands’ signifies to me more than simply being
convinced to ‘serve tables/ διακονεῖν τραπέζαισ ’.20 According to many, the selection of
17 For example, see the narrative-‐discourse of Peter and John before the council and the prayer for boldness in Acts 4 (external conflict); the Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 (internal conflict); the healing and restoration of the peoples and jealous responses of the council/Sanhedrin in Acts 5:12-‐42 (external) and the choosing of the seven Greek deacons in Acts 6 (internal), etc. 18For Jesus directly chose, called and commissioned the 12 apostles (Luke 6:12-‐16 cf. Luke 9:1-‐2; Luke 24:47-‐49), and indirectly through the indwelling Spirit, Matthias (Acts 1:20-‐26 cf. Luke 22:30), the 7 officers of the church through the apostles (Acts 6:1-‐7), Saul (Acts 9:1-‐31 cf. 22:1-‐21; 26:12-‐18) and Barnabas (Acts 13:2-‐3), the elders of the church (Acts 11:30; 14:22-‐23 cf. 20:17-‐35) and the prophets and teachers of Antioch (Acts 13:1-‐3). 19 I believe that this passage is descriptive of the election of the diaconate. At the request of the apostles the church disciples elected seven Greeks to ‘serve tables’ (διακονεῖν τραπέζαισ) in lieu of the apostles (Acts 6:2). While the use of the noun for ‘ministry/service’ in this passage (διακονία, Acts 6:4) seems to be generic for any service, the present, active, infinitive use of the verb διακονέω in Acts 6:2 is the same verb used in 1 Timothy 3:10,13 for those that serve or are to serve as deacons. 20 The difference here seems to be that the seven are officially commissioned by prayer and the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6) which makes simple service (διακονία) unlikely. The laying on of hands is use 5 times in Acts, in 3 ways: commissioning to a ministry (Acts 6:1-‐6; 13:3), healing (Acts 9:17) and the gift of the Spirit (Acts 8:18; 9:17; 19:6).
8
the seven Greek men in Acts 6:1-‐7 is instructive for distinguishing between the role of
elders, for prayer and the ministry or service of the Word of God, and that of deacons, for
waiting on tables. Thus, it may be assumed by this passage that the elders of the early
church gave attention to the spiritual oversight of the church, whereas deacons occupied
themselves with the practical tasks and physical concerns of the church (cf. Paul’s farewell
address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17-‐35 where he uses his life as an example to
model for the elders/overseers in the preaching and teaching of the whole council of God
and shepherding the flock, but provides no reference to waiting on tables). Although the
noun for ‘service’/διακονία and the verb ‘to serve’/διακονεῖν appear in the text of Acts 6:1-‐
7, as the narrative of Acts unfolds, it seems unlikely that the role of the first ‘deacons’ was
solely one of waiting on widows and tables (see Stephen’s ministry in Acts 6:8-‐15; and
Phillip’s evangelistic ministry in Acts 8:4-‐40 cf. 21:8). Furthermore, Jesus says to His
apostles in Luke 22:27, εἰμι ώς ό διακονῶν /I am among you as the one who serves. Does
that make Jesus a deacon? Is Jesus speaking parabolically or are our Lord’s comments to
be taken literally (cf. Luke 24:30 for the Lord serving tables to the two on the road to
Emmaus)? Because regenerate, yet sinful, man is incapable of comprehensively attending
to the saints as individuals, as our Lord commands, God provides for His church two sets of
multiple officers in order to properly service the Word and prayer and attend to their
physical needs. This appears to be the witness of Acts. For as we move on in the narrative,
we see explicit evidence of the local church appointing elders (Acts 14:22-‐23). Therefore
to enter into the kingdom of God, we see that the church manages these ‘many, necessary
tribulations’ immediately, decisively and encouragingly through the selection of elders,
under the direct superintendence of the Spirit of Christ.21
As the narrative of the early church continues and its development over time unfolds,
we see that in the ‘church’ in Ephesus there were multiple elders/πρεσβυτέρους, also
called, or referred to as, overseers/ἐπισκόπους, (Acts 20:17 cf. 20:28). How are these
officers of the church similar, or different from, each other, or the office described in Acts
6:1-‐7, and what can we say about their characteristics and office, based on Paul’s farewell
21 ὄτι διἀ πολλῶν θλιψεων δεῖ ήμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τἠν Βασιλεἰαν τοῦ θεοῦ…..κατ᾽ἐκκλησἰαν πρεσβυτἐπους (Acts 14:22-‐23). We do not see the election or appointment of a Bishop as a means of managing the necessary tribulations that the church is promised which is to be contrasted with Ignatius’ actions (cf. references 32-‐34 and page 12 of this manuscript).
9
address to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17-‐35), in particular, and the book of Acts, in
general? Was the fact that there was more than one elder, ‘the elders of the church/τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας’ (Acts 20:17), illustrative that there was more than one
church which constituted the entire ‘church’ in Ephesus, with one elder per church, or are
we to conclude that there was more than one elder in each of the churches which together
constituted the ‘church’? This paradigm of church oversight had precedence, in the NT
church and the book of Acts, and was likely learned from the church in Judah (Acts 11:30
cf. 11:22 for multiple elders/τοῦς πρεσβυτέρους in the ‘church’ in Jerusalem/τῆς
ἐκκλησίας τῆς οὒσης ἐν Ἰερουσαλἠμ). Paul states, in this passage, that he taught the
elders/overseers both in public and from houses (ύμᾶς σημοσἰᾳ κατ᾽οἲκους, Acts 20:20).
Therefore, it seems likely that the ‘church’/ τῆς ἐκκλησίας was really the entire visible
church with all its constituent assemblies (Acts 20:17), as it appears to have been in
Jerusalem (Acts 11:22). This might have included both synagogues, public places of
worship, and small house churches. Within them, there would have been elders chosen by
either Paul and/or his companions or chosen by the local congregations/ἐκκλησίας and
committed/anointed by the Holy Spirit (this can be stated with some certainty if the
paradigm Paul established on the way back to Antioch Syria, through the churches he had
previously visited during his first missionary journey, continued during his 3 years in
Ephesus and Asia minor, cf. Acts 14:23 with 20:28; this is a logical assumption since we
find no explicit or implied referents to the contrary in Paul’s subsequent missionary
journeys). This matter is of no small significance. Not only does the narrative in this
passage provide for us the basic unit of the church of our Lord Jesus Christ (local
congregation under the governance of a body of locally elected elders/overseers with
Jesus Christ as the head), but Paul’s farewell speech to the Ephesian elders inculcates to
the ‘church’ the necessity of regional meetings of elders brought together as a group for
unity, community and governance⎯presbytery (cf. Acts 6:2-‐6; 13:1-‐3 and 21:18-‐26 for
other similar regional meetings of the church).22 These regional meetings were similar to
22 Others have affirmed my position here: for example, see Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ, 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1868, pg.329; McPherson, John. Presbyterianism, Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, n.d., pg.126-‐7 and Cannada, Robert C. and Williamson, W. Jack. The Historic Polity of the PCA, A Press, Greenville, SC, 1997, pg.10-‐29.
10
the larger, national meeting of the apostles and elders we encounter in Luke’s narrative
account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:1-‐35. While the purpose of this ‘general
assembly’ of the leaders of the church appears to have been to discuss, and manage, the
doctrinal dissension caused by a misapprehension of the law and circumcision, it’s
ultimate goal was to encourage and build up the different factions of the church so that
they could remain in communion with God, and each other, and continue in the
proclamation of the Gospel.23 In this manner, likewise, the regional meeting of the elders
of Ephesus in Miletus served a similar function. The term used for the office, whether
elder or overseer (πρεσβυτέρος or ἐπισκόπος), is of less importance than the
transformative witness of this narrative for the necessity of more than one officer in every
‘church’ (it is possible that there was only 1 elder at some churches and multiple elders in
the ‘church’ as a whole). Moreover, the repetitiveness of these ‘regional’ meetings, seen
again here in Paul’s speech to the elders in Miletus, emphasizes their importance in the
early church and provides a model for church governance today.
Now that I have discussed the elder, in terms of church governance in the context of
their pervasiveness, multiplicity, and assemblies, I will attempt to discuss the similarities
between the elder and overseer, as to office, as well as what we can glean from the book of
Acts as to their particular personal characteristics. While the protestant church,
denominationally, appears to use different names for the elder/πρεσβυτέρος in different
contexts, the office, is largely one and the same.24 This leads us to attempt to determine
what is the gender of the elder in the book of Acts and how are they to be set apart from
23 The Jerusalem Council was the first general assembly of the officers of the church to govern. ‘The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate…For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden that these requirements’ (Acts 15:6-‐7, 28). For evidence of the dissemination of the recommendations of the assembly through the letter see Acts 21:25. 24 Luke uses each of these terms once, elders/πρεσβυτέρους (Acts 20:17) and overseers/ἐπισκόπους (Acts 20:28) in Acts 20:17-‐35. In the context of this passage, Paul is giving a speech to ‘the elders’, which Luke states at the outset of the passage. Paul then refers to the same group of elders, he is addressing throughout the passage, as overseers prior to describing the job description of their office. Luke tells us that it is the Holy Spirit that has made them overseers, to tend like a shepherd for the church of God/ποιμαίνειν τἠω ἐκκλεσίαν τοῦ θεοῦ. But this cannot mean that they are only to care for and tend to, in a service oriented way, as in the preceding verse Paul makes perfectly clear that in order to truly be caring for the flock (shepherding/ ποιμαίνειν) and proclaim the kingdom of God, one must not shrink from preaching the whole council of God. Thus, it is my conclusion that the term elder and overseer are more similar than disparate in the book of Acts and while they have taken on different roles in denominational protestant Christianity, pertaining to church governance, their office in purpose is the same, to shepherd the flock and preach the whole counsel of God.
11
other disciples in terms of their requisite characteristics? This passage in Acts 20 never
explicitly tells us these things, but I think we can determine the voice of Luke in his
narrative as to ‘who’ the elders of the early church were, and what they were like. In
chapter 6 of Acts, Luke describes the characteristics of those of which the church is to
select to ‘serve tables’. They are to be men, of good repute, full of the Spirit and wisdom
(Acts 6:2-‐6). While I recognize that it is a matter of some controversy, I believe that this
passage represents the first description of the election of diaconates. Whether or not one
affirms or denies this as truth, what we can say with certainty is that Acts 6:2-‐6 provides
for us a Lukan paradigm for the election of important servants of the church (from the
congregation up), as well as, a view of the requisite personal characteristics of those to be
appointed. As such, it would be inconsistent, at best, to assume that the choosing of
elders/overseers would be substantially different, given the significance of their role and
purpose in the church (for potential support of the apostolic choosing of elders and
hierarchical church governance one could cite Acts 14:23, although this verse could be
rendered in support of Congregationalism or Presbyterianism, as well). The only other
passage in the book of Acts, prior to Acts 20 and the quotations therein, that uses the term
elder, is found in Acts 11:30.25 This passage simply mentions, by inference, that there are
elders in the church in Jerusalem/Judea. Therefore, it is my opinion that the book of Acts
supports the election of multiple elders/overseers by the local church. They are to be
men, of good repute, full of the Spirit and wisdom and to be ordained through prayer and
the laying on of hands by previously installed elders after being chosen and anointed by
the Holy Spirit.
The Governance of the Church: a Broad Overview From Christ to Today:
Now that I have engaged in a discussion regarding the particular witness of the bioi-‐
narrative of the Luke-‐Acts sequence in the development of church polity, as a means to
compare, I will broadly review the post-‐apostolic references of its progression from the
late first century to the present day.
25 We do encounter the word πρεσβὐτεροι in Acts 21:18 for the elders in the Jerusalem church with James, πρεσβυτἐροις in Acts 23:14 in the context of the Sanhedrin, πρεσβυτἐρων in Acts 24:1 when Ananias goes down to Caesarea for Paul’s examination before Felix and πρεσβὐτεροι in Acts 25:15 when Festus presents the group that accuses Paul to Agrippa II.
12
The early church was governed by a two-‐tiered system featuring elders/bishops and
deacons in plurality.26 Clement of Rome referred to the apostolic practice of choosing
church leaders as being in line with Isaiah 60:17-‐18a LXX, ‘I will appoint their bishops in
righteousness and their deacons in faith (καἰ δώσω τοὐς ᾶρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ, καἰ τοὐς
ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)’.27 In the late first century, the Didache gave instructions
to Christians to ‘appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord.28 About
the same time, Polycarp encouraged the Philippian church to be ‘obedient to the
presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ.29 While these early church witnesses
support the notion of a two-‐tiered system of governance, the distinction between these
two offices developed over the course of time and was not initially clear. While the ante-‐
Nicene fathers of the church continued in this tradition, no hard-‐and-‐fast rule to
distinguish the offices was formulated early on.30
Faced with dangerous heresies in the two-‐tiered system, and being confronted with
potential divisions in the church, Ignatius of Antioch responded with a new, three-‐tiered
system of polity.31 In this new system, he made a distinction between the offices of
overseer and elders and called for ‘one bishop, together with the presbytery and the
deacons, my fellow servants’ to lead the churches.32 In the early 2nd century (ca.110),
while in Rome for martyrdom, Ignatius writes, ‘For when you are subject to the bishop as
to Jesus Christ, it is evident to me that you are living not in accordance with human
standards but in accordance with Jesus Christ….It is essential, therefore, that you continue
your current practice and do nothing without the bishop, but be subject also to the
26 I am indebted to Dr. Gregg Allison for his summary of the history of church governance, which I frequently referred to in the preparation of this paper. Allison, Gregg R. Church Government in: Historical Theology: an Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530, 2011, pg. 588-‐610. 27 Clement of Rome, Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, 42 (c.96-‐140), in Holmes, 75, Ante-‐Nicene Fathers (ANF from here), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Baker, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1999, 1:16. 28 Didache (the teaching of the twelve apostles), 15 (c.70-‐120), in Holmes, 267; ANF, 7:381. 29 Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 5, (c.110-‐140) in Holmes, 213; ANF, 1:34. 30 Ibid, reference 26, pg.590. 31 There is temporal overlap in these early church father and apostolic witnesses, that is, Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch were likely contemporaries, as was the apostolic witness of the Didache, making the chronological storyline of the development of church governance uncertain. 32 Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, 4 (c.110-‐115 ), in Holmes, 179; ANF, 1:81.
13
presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope’.33 It was about this time that the
universal church was called ‘Catholic’.34 To Ignatius, unity and obedience to the bishop
was indispensable. Indeed, from this point forward, until the reformation, because he
exercised such authority, the bishop was to be the rallying point for all the activities of the
church. As the church developed in the third and fourth centuries, the three-‐fold structure
introduced by Ignatius became the standard government.35 It is also noteworthy that the
later church fathers did not differentiate the office of elder and overseer but seemed to
differentiate the two from deacons (this notion seems to be in agreement with Paul and
the NT witness, see Acts 20:17,28; 1 Timothy 3:1-‐13; Titus 1:5-‐7 cf. σὺν ὲπισκόποις καὶ
διακόνοις in Philippians 1:1; Scriptural referents mine).36 Origen was a proponent of
deaconesses, as noted in his oldest extant commentary on Romans, appealing to Phoebe
(Romans 16:1-‐2).37 To the church, at that time, it was important for woman to have
leadership roles and share in the responsibilities of caring for the weak and doing
visitations to avoid bringing reproach because of the sexual scandal between the male
clergy and women. Thus, by the fourth century the church had become a highly organized,
hierarchical institution with the responsibilities of its offices of bishop, elder, deacon, and
deaconess specifically delineated.
The turning point of this governing paradigm started at the debate between Cyprian,
the bishop of Carthage, and Stephen, the bishop of Rome, over the Novatian schism.38 It
33 Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians, 2 (c.110-‐115), In Holmes, 160-‐61; ANF, 1:66-‐67. 34 ‘Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church/ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία’, Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, in Angle, Paul T. The Mysterious Origins of Christianity. Wheatmark, Inc., 2007. 35 Allison, Gregg R. Church Government in: Historical Theology: an Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530, 2011, pg. 592. 36 Jerome, Letter 146, to Evangelus, 1-‐2 (c.366-‐384), in: Nicene and Post-‐Nicene Fathers (NPNF from here), Peabody, Mass.: Henrickson, 1994. 37 Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 16:1-‐2 (c.246), cited in Ruth Tucker and Water Liefield, Daughters of the Church, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530, 1987, pg.106 38 This debate largely began the papacy (the elevation of the bishop of Rome to a position of supremacy among other bishops). The Novatian schism (254-‐256) and the later Donatism controversy (303-‐305) polemicized whether those that renounced their faith, under the direct persecution of the respective Roman emperors, should be admitted to the Eucharist, need to be re-‐baptized and be in unity with the rest of the church, etc. Because of these disagreements further dissension arouse over which bishop had the ultimate authority to make the decision for the church as a whole. Both Stephen and Cyprian appealed to Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16:15-‐19 but they disagreed on it’s interpretation. Was Peter the chief apostle (Stephen) or did all the apostles have parity (Cyprian)?
14
took until the ecumenical council of Constantinople for the dispute to be settled.39 While
there were further disagreements that followed, by the time Gregory the Great was the
leader of the church, the term pope was applied almost exclusively to the Roman bishop
(590-‐604). This three-‐tiered hierarchical governance, with the pope as the head,
continued, with little change throughout the Middle Ages, with two exceptions. Following
the filioque (and from the son) dispute, which fractured the church over the procession of
the Holy Spirit and power (1054), the greatest development of the church during this time
was the expansion of the authority of the papacy in the secular world, perhaps reaching
it’s zenith with Innocent III (1198-‐1216). These events lead to the period of the church
known as the ‘Great Schism’ and found the church almost hopelessly divided (1378-‐1417).
This lead to the conciliar movement within the Roman Catholic Church, that was
characterized by the view that general church councils, rather than the papacy, exercise
supreme authority in the church. Pope Pius II put an end to this, short lived, movement
issuing a declaration that made appeals to general church councils illegitimate, and the
pope was back in charge.40
The hypocrisy of the accumulation of power, wealth and prestige by the church, under
this system, did not go unnoticed by a remnant of devote, orthodox Christian men, nor did
the eisegesis of Scripture, which the Romish proponents held to. John Wycliffe, who
sought to rectify the decrepit state of the church leadership by proposing an alternative
model focusing on ‘the holiness of the pastor and the wholesomeness of his teaching’.41
This focus led Wycliffe to his English translation of the Latin Vulgate, increasing Biblical
literacy and readership, which later on, under the subsequent leadership of John Hus,
became know to some as the ‘Morningstar of the Reformation’. Martin Luther entered the
storyline with his 95 theses to the Roman Catholic Church at Wittenberg (1517) and later
was formally tried and vindicated at the Diet of the Worms (1521). Like those before him,
39 The bishops of the five major churches (Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople) all had a stake in the discussion. According to the Council of Constantinople (381), ‘The bishop of Constantinople….shall have the prerogative (primacy) of honor after the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome’ in Council of Constantinople, canon 3, in NPNF, 14:178. 40 Pope Pius II, Execrabilis (January 1460), in Bettenson, 150. 41 To Wycliffe, the primacy of the Word of God was to exceed prayer and the administration of the sacraments, to an infinite degree (against Rome and its sacramentalism); ‘The spread of the Gospel has far wider and more evident benefit, it is the most precious activity of the church’. John Wycliffe, On the Pastoral Office, 1.1, Library of Christian Classics (LCC from here), 14:32.
15
Luther’s main concern was to distance the ‘reformed’ church congregations from the
Roman Catholic structure and its elevation of the pope as the supreme ruler over all
Christian churches. He described the true church as one with seven marks or
characteristics including the office of ministry. He emphasized that the bishops or pastors
were to be called by God and chosen by the church (eliminating Romish nepotism), and
formally separated the church from the secular state.42 However, Luther did not offer a
developed doctrine of church government and thus ‘Lutheran’ churches continued in the
traditional three-‐tiered system with the Bishop as the head, which is how they are
governed today.
John Calvin began a transformation of the government of the church in Geneva,
Switzerland in 1536. He affirmed that God could have chosen to rule directly over the
church, yet opted to govern through ministers in order to foster humility, godliness,
obedience, teachability, mutual love and unity.43 While Wycliffe, Hus and Luther ‘put a
Bible in the common man’s hand’, Calvin drew attention to the Biblical teaching
demanding corporate worship and the role of the pastor/teacher in preaching and
teaching the truths of God’s word (critical text, Ephesians 4:11).44 Thus, Calvin focused on
the pastors and teachers and the difference between them: teachers are not put in charge
of discipline, or administering the sacraments, or warnings and exhortations, but only of
Scriptural interpretation—to keep doctrine whole and pure among believers. But the
pastoral office includes all these functions within itself. Pastors are called by God and
affirmed by the local congregation. Quoting Calvin, ‘This call of a minister is lawful
according to the Word of God, when those who seemed fit are created by the consent and
approval of the people; moreover, other pastors ought to preside over the election in order
42 Differently exegeting Luke 22:38, which Pope Boniface VIII (1302) had used as a crutch to claim papal superiority of church and state, Luther gave the church over entirely to spiritual matters and responsibilities and insisted it not be formally concerned with matters of civil government and disturbingly mingle together ‘the ecclesiastical power and the power of the sword’. See Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church, in Luther’s Works 41:154, Concordia, St. Louis, 1955-‐1986 and the Augsburg Confession, 2.7, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:59 Harper, New York, 1877-‐1905. 43 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (1536, first ed.; 1559, last ed.), 4.3.1, in the Library of Christian Classics, 2:1053. 44 ‘Many are led either by pride, dislike or rivalry to the conviction that they can profit enough from private reading and meditation; hence they despise public assemblies and deem preaching superfluous’. Ibid ,4.1.5 and 4.3.4, LCC 2:1056.
16
that the multitude may not go wrong either through fickleness, through evil intentions, or
through disorder’.45 The responsibilities of the pastor/teacher were to engage in
preaching of the Word of God in church, baptizing people, conducting the Lord’s supper,
and carrying out church discipline. Calvin called this office the bishop, presbyter, pastor
and minister, according to the Scriptural usage, which interchanges these terms.46
Therefore, Calvin’s teaching in his Institutes formally broke with the traditional three-‐
tiered, episcopalian, hierarchical system of church governance, which had ruled the church
since the late first century, to form a new system of governance. In this system, there was
a second office of the diaconate or deacon, which were in charge of caring for the poor and
sick.47
Following Calvin’s break from Rome and the traditional three-‐tiered system of polity,
the Westminster Assembly, building on Calvin’s work, produced an ecumenical, reformed
system of governance and doctrine in an effort to unite the Scottish church and the Church
of England. In this system, the church called for ‘assemblies as are commonly called
synods or councils….it is their ministerial prerogative to determine controversies
concerning the faith and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the
better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His church; to receive
complaints in cases of wrong administration and to determine authoritatively such
cases’.48 In this system of governance, known today as Presbyterianism, there is a ground
up election of officers, starting with the local congregation, and there are three levels of
governing bodies (local: presbytery; regional: classis; national: synod).49 About the same
45 Ibid, 4.3.15, LCC, 2:1066. 46 Ibid, 4.3.8, LCC 2:1060. Calvin appealed to the clear synonymous, Biblical usage of presbyter/elder and episkopos/overseer/bishop in Titus 1:5-‐7 and Acts 20:17,28. Calvin also cited Jerome here, see reference 13. 47 Ibid 4.3.9, LCC, 2:1061. 48 Paraphrased from the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), chapter 31, 1646. The confession largely refers, in this chapter on governance, to Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council as critical or proof texts. While the names of the disparate levels of governance have changed from the original paradigm, the model remains the same. Therefore, the general assembly has replaced the synod at the national level, the presbytery has replaced the classis at the regional level and the session has replaced the presbytery at the local level. All the Presbyterian denominations in the United States derive their church polity from, and are subordinate to, to some degree, the WCF, of which it is affirmed is potentially fallible and submissive to Holy Scripture (OPC, PCA, EPC, PCUSA, from conservative to modern). 49 The Westminster Assembly Directory for Church Government (1645, 1771), in Paradigms in Polity: Classic Readings in Reformed and Presbyterian Church Government, ed. David W. Hall and Joseph H. Hall, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, pg. 263.
17
time, another system of church government developed that rejected both the traditional
three-‐tiered Episcopalian system of the Roman Church and the new, reformed protestant
church. The earliest expression of this system was the Anabaptists’ Schleitheim
Confession.50 These were the seeds of contemporary congregational governance.
Separatists from around this time fled from England, first to Holland as doctrinal discord
regarding baptism proved too much for the church to remain ecumenical, and ultimately
the United States on the Mayflower as pilgrims (1620). In this two-‐tiered system, the
ministers of the church are not only bishops/overseers, to whom the power is given to
dispense both the Word and sacraments, but also deacons, men and widows, who attend
to the affairs of the poor and sick brothers.51 When they settled in Plymouth, the colony
established a formal Congregationalism as their church governance.52 Because the church
in England was split, it formed a new Episcopalian form of governance, which was three-‐
tiered, like the Roman Catholic Church, but not subservient to the pope. This church and
form of governance became known as the Anglican church with it’s thirty nine, reformed
articles as the church of England developed a Protestant episcopacy.
Today, the current Roman Catholic Church remains largely unchanged from its pre-‐
Reformational state. The Anglican Church or Church of England, and its Episcopalian and
Methodist Protestant counterparts in the United States, largely follow a three-‐tiered,
hierarchical system of top down management and governance without subservience to the
pope. In contemporary Congregationalism, there are a number of both independent and
Baptist churches which follow the polity. In this two-‐tiered system, there is, often a single
pastor, with or without elders and a board of deacons/deaconesses. While the officers of
the church are elected by the local congregation, which is similar to Presbyterianism, there
are no formal regional or national governing authorities but simple, voluntary, loose
50 The pastor has the responsibilities, ‘to read, admonish and teach, warn, discipline, excommunicate from the church, lead in prayer for the advancement of all the brothers and sisters, serve communion, and in all things see to the care of the body of Christ in order that it may be built up and developed’. Scleitheim Confession (1527), art.5, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, Judson, Valley Forge, 1969. 51 Smyth, John, A Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles (1609), 16, and Helwys, Thomas, A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland (1611), 21 both in Lumpkin, pg. 101, 121-‐122. 52 Ibid, reference 19, pg. 605.
18
associations amongst those of like denomination, which is to be contrasted with all other
church polities noted.53
The Presbyterian Church in America: a 21st Century Encouragement:
Now that I have humbly attempted to rightly embody and apply the special revelatory
bioi-‐narrative of the Luke-‐Acts sequence as a witness unto church polity, reviewed its
critical texts and the witness of the post-‐apostolic church, I will briefly critique the
Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA) model of polity as it relates to these texts. The
PCA maintains a Presbyterian polity as set forth in its Book of Church Order (BCO). We
hold the Protestant Bible as inerrant and infallible and follow the Westminster standards
and larger and smaller catechisms, as subservient to Holy Scripture. Local church officers
include elders (teaching and ruling) and deacons, which are called by God, confirmed by
the local congregation of members and ordained by the laying on of hands by elders in the
local body or regional presbytery. The teaching elders (ordained ministers/pastors) and
the ruling elders make up the session of the local church and govern and serve its saints
through preaching, teaching, shepherding, mission and mercy ministry. Adhering to the
Southern tradition of the parity of elders, the teaching and ruling elders of the church are
considered equals with the pastors to be the first among equals. The elected deacons of
the church are not part of the governing body, but play a broader role in the financial
management and service of the body of believers. The church is governed at the regional
level by a group of elected local elders (presbyters), which participate in regular,
scheduled meetings of presbyteries and at the national level by elected elders at general
assembly. The local assemblies own and operate their own properties, in our branch of
Presbyterianism, and while these church congregations are self-‐governing they are
voluntarily subservient to the regional and national court systems (presbyteries/general
assembly) in matters of conflict, management and doctrinal discord.
How then does the PCA, in its governing Presbyterianism, compare to the witness of the
Luke-‐Acts sequence and the post-‐apostolic church? As I have outlined in the beginning, it
is challenging for most to come to the texts of Luke monolithically and attempt to immerse
53 Grudem, Wayne, Church Government, in Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49530, 1994, Chapter 47, pg. 923-‐937.
19
themself into the transformative worldview of its bioi-‐narrative pages rather than use its
descriptors as a tool for Biblical political eisegesis. I am no exception. However, I have
tried to be faithful to the authorial intent of Luke and limited my Scriptural quotations to
those in his corpus (except for those that he explicitly uses, or appeal to the doctrinal
concepts he clearly exposits). To that end, I have found the governance of the PCA to be
thoroughly Biblical in its structure. For the Luke-‐Acts sequence, and the worldview of its
author, is one of covenant. To Luke, the Bible’s entire storyline is one of the triune God
‘acting out’ His plan and keeping his promises, in His sovereignty, to His people for their
redemption and reconciliation to Himself through the God Man, Jesus Christ and the power
of the Holy Spirit. God chose Jesus, Abraham, Moses, David, the apostles, the seven Greek
men, Paul and Barnabas and the elders of His churches as emissaries to proclaim His
entire counsel and redeem a people for the Son, and govern the saints in truth.
Throughout the book of Acts we see a pattern of commissioning, mission, nurturing and
strengthening of the faithful through the appointment of multiple elders and finally
regional and national meetings of elected elders for the accountability, encouragement and
ecumenicity of the ‘church’. It is my opinion that this normative pattern is prescriptive of
church polity and planting; it is the governance of the PCA. Our ground up election of
multiple officers and emphasized local governance seems to mirror the witness of Luke in
the book of Acts. In addition, the regional and national court systems of our polity and the
voluntary, but tightly applied, associations with them protect the relative autonomy of
local assemblies and yet create a bottom up and top down unity and accountability. It
should be noted that the PCA does pursue looser, fraternal relationships with similarly
minded, reformed denominations internationally. This connectional ministry produces
humility within our denomination and allows us to listen to, learn from and partner with
the global ‘church’ through this context. Broadly speaking then, this system has lead the
PCA to protect the primacy of the inerrant Word of God, given unity to its leadership and
local congregations, provided all the members a voice in management, and fostered
humbleness in international ecumenicity in doctrine and mission. Arguments against this
system, which have been rendered, are that it can result in much formal litigation and that
the ultimate power of the ‘church’ is too removed from the laypeople of the church. Some
have also suggested that the structure actually increases the probability of doctrinal
20
heresy rather than decreasing it. I have found these arguments to be impertinent to the
faithfulness of our governance to the witness of Luke-‐Acts. For as we have seen, all the
components of the governmental system in the book of Acts, the first century church, are
found in the PCA’s polity.
The post-‐apostolic church, in response to the tribulations that God necessitated in the
building of His church and inaugurated kingdom, changed from a two-‐tiered system to a
hierarchical system with a top down control of the church through a bishop or pope.
Arguments for this episcopalian, three-‐tiered system, are not that it is found in the book of
Acts, but that it is a natural outgrowth of the development of the church and not
proscribed by the Scriptures. While expedient for the church, and originally intended as a
paradigm to counteract doctrinal discord and heresy, it seems improper to me to devalue a
God given normative pattern and manage oneself based solely on what the Bible does not
proscribe. We see this remedied during the Reformational period through a re-‐
commitment to the inerrancy of the Word of God and the witness of Luke-‐Acts as a two-‐
tiered system. Therefore, it is the view of this author, that in the 21st century ‘church’
today, the systems that adhere most closely to the ‘church’ of Acts are the Presbyterian
and multiple elder, Congregationalist denominations. In both of these polities, we find
ground up election of officers by the members of the church, multiple elders and deacons
and an emphasis of local control. As we have seen, the first century church over time
developed both regional and national assemblies of elected elders that participated in the
management of doctrinal discord and worked for the unity of local congregations. In this
way, the polity of the PCA, to be differentiated from multi-‐elder Congregationalism, is
more faithful to the bioi-‐narrative we have just reviewed and perhaps explains the
popularity and appeal of large national conference events like the Gospel Coaliation for the
Congregationalists as it reveals a conscientious impulse for the connectivity of the church
embodied throughout the pages of Acts and yet lacking in their polity.
Index of Scriptural References from Luke-Acts:
Luke page(s) 1:1-‐4 2 1:46-‐55 5 1:68-‐79 5
21
3:18 3 4:18-‐19 3 4:21 3 4:43 3 6:12-‐16 6 9:1-‐2 6 22:20 6 22:27 7 22:30 5,6 22:69 5 24:26-‐27 6 24:27 6 24:30 7 24:45-‐48 6 24:47-‐49 5,6 Acts page(s) 1:1 2,5 1:1-‐3 5 1:3,6 4 1:5 4,5 1:1-‐11 4 1:20-‐26 5,6,7 2:4 5 2:14-‐36 5,6 2:42-‐47 4,6 2:47 4 3:14-‐26 6 4 6 4:32-‐37 4,6 5 6 5:12-‐42 6 6 10 6:2 6,7 6:4 6 6:2-‐6 8,10 6:6 6 6:7 4 6:1-‐7 6,7,8 6:8-‐15 7 7:2-‐53 6 8:18 7 8:35 6 8:35-‐38 6 8:4-‐40 7
22
9:1-‐31 4,6 9:17 7 9:31 4 10 4 10:44-‐48 6 11 4 11:22 9 11:30 6,8,10 12:24 4 13:1-‐3 6,7,8 13:2-‐3 6 13:16-‐41 6 13:23 6 13:26-‐41 6 13:27 6 13:32 6 13:48 6 14:22-‐23 6,8,10 15:6-‐7 9 15:7-‐9 4 15:28 9 15:1-‐35 9 16:5 4 16:10-‐12 2 16:14-‐15 6 16:32-‐35 6 17:34 6 19:6 7 19:17-‐20 6 19:20 4 20 10 20:6-‐16 2 20:17 7,8,9,11 20:20 8 20:28 7,8,9,11 20:17-‐35 6,7,8,9 21:8 8 21:1-‐17 2 21:18 10 21:18-‐26 8 21:25 9 22:1-‐21 4,6 23:14 10 24:1 11 24:14-‐15 6 26:6-‐19 6
23
26:12-‐18 4,6 27:1-‐8 2 27:16 2 27:20 2 27:26 2 27:37 2 28:1 2 28:11 2 28:15 2 28:23 4 28:23-‐31 6 28:30-‐31 4
Bibliography:
Allison, Gregg R. Church Government in: Historical Theology: an Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530, 2011, pg. 588-‐610. Angle, Paul T., Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, in The Mysterious Origins of Christianity. Wheatmark, Inc., 2007. Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ, 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1868, pg.329. Battles F.L, ed. McNeil J.T., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (1536, first ed.; 1559, last ed.), 4.1.5, 4.3.1, 4.3.4, 4.3.8, 4.3.9, 4.3.15, in the Library of Christian Classics, 2nd ed., Westminster, Philadephia, 1960, 2:1053-‐1066. Bettenson, H. and Maunder, C., Pope Pius II, Execrabilis (January 1460), Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1999, 150. Cannada, R. C. and Williamson, W. J., The Historic Polity of the PCA, A Press, Greenville, SC, 1997, pg.10-‐29. Grudem, Wayne, Church Government, in Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49530, 1994, Chapter 47, pg. 923-‐937. Hall, D.W. and Hall, J.H., The Westminster Assembly Directory for Church Government (1645, 1771), in Paradigms in Polity: Classic Readings in Reformed and Presbyterian Church Government, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, pg. 263. Helm, David, Contextualization, in Expositional Preaching, Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois, 60187, 2014, pg.24.
24
Holmes, Michael W., Clement of Rome, Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, 42 (c.96-‐ 140), 75, Ante-‐Nicene Fathers (ANF from here), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Baker, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1999, 1:16. —Didache (the teaching of the twelve apostles), 15 (c.70-‐120), in Holmes, 267; ANF, 7:381. —Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 5, (c.110-‐140) in Holmes, 213; ANF, 1:34. —Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, 4 (c.110-‐115 ), in Holmes, 179; ANF, 1:81. —Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians, 2 (c.110-‐115), In Holmes, 160-‐61; ANF, 1:66-‐67. Jipp, Joshua W., The Beginnings of a Theology of Luke-Acts: Divine Activity and Human Response, in Journal of Theological Interpretation 8.1, 2014, pg. 23-‐44. Lumpkin, W.L., Scleitheim Confession (1527), art.5, in Baptist Confessions of Faith, Judson, Valley Forge, 1969. —Helwys, Thomas, A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland (1611), pgs. 121-‐122. —Smyth, John, A Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles (1609), 16, pg. 101. McPherson, John. Presbyterianism, Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, n.d., pg.126-‐7. Pelikan, Jaroslav, et al., Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church, in Luther’s Works, Concordia, St. Louis, 1955-‐1986, 41:154. Pennington, Jonathan T., What are the Gospels? In Reading the Gospels Wisely: a Narrative and Theological Introduction, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49516, 2012, pg 31, 34-‐35. Ricoeur, P., Philosophical Hermeneutics, 30. Roberts A. et al., Jerome, Letter 146, to Evangelus, 1-‐2 (c.366-‐384), in: Nicene and Post-‐ Nicene Fathers (NPNF from here), Henrickson, Peabody, Mass., 1994. —Council of Constantinople, canon 3, in NPNF, 14:178. Root, Michael, The Narrative Structure of Soteriology, in Why Narrative? Readings in Narrative Theology, Wipf & Stock, Eugene, Oregon, 1997, pg. 266. Schaff, Philip, Augsburg Confession, 2.7, in Creeds of Christendom, 3:59 Harper, New York, 1877-‐1905.
25
Strauss, Mark, Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49516, pg. 27-‐29. The Book of Church Order of the PCA, Sixth Edition, Christian Education & Publications, Lawrenceville, Georgia, 2013, Thompson, Alan J., Living ‘between the times’: the kingdom of God, in: The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus, Inter Varsity Press, USA, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515, 2011, pg. 19-‐20, 30, 49, 125. Tucker R. and Liefield W., Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 16:1-‐2 (c.246), Daughters of the Church, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530, 1987, pg.106. Vos, Geerhardus in Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, Banner of Truth Trust, 2007, pg.23-‐25 Westminster Confession of Faith, WCF, chapter 7 and 31, 1646, Christian Education & Publications, Lawrenceville, Georgia, 2007, pgs. 30-‐31 and 145-‐147. Wycliffe, John, On the Pastoral Office, 1.1, Library of Christian Classics, Westminster, Philadephia, PA., 1960, 14:32.