WCF 26:2, while safeguarding title to goods, states that the saints 'are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification'. This obligation, which extends to 'all those, who in every place, call upon the name of the Lord' is modified only by providence; 'as God offereth opportunity'. So the question is what form does this 'holy fellowship' take and how does it work?
As an 'emerging' church my denomination (EPCEW) experiences occasional crises of identity linked to what Presbyterianism is and how it works. This pondering of the relation of the one to the many(local congregation to denomination) translates into questions about presbytery being a higher or wider 'court', whether finance should be centrally managed and whether presbytery should be allowed to levy denominational taxes (to mention a few). To Independent brethren (and regrettably also some Presbyterians) this all smacks of what is bad in our polity, which is a great pity because Presbyterian connexionalism takes seriously the obligation to give existential expression to the doctrine of the church as the body of Christ. For this reason it ought not to be viewed as as discussion about human systems. While there is no exact blue-print, neither is there permission to reduce polity to a complete free-for-all, make-it-up-as-you-go-along kind of thing.
I think that our problems with connexionalism originate in individualism, which is the default perspective for most of us. The individual conscience (sometimes lack of it) reigns supreme to the extent that even self-conscious presbyterians wrestle with voluntarism and sometimes despise the institutional church. In a voluntary society office and authority derive from the consent of its members (congregationalism) but in the church of Christ they come from God. Naturally Presbyterianism (or any other polity), overbearingly applied, will bring a curse, as some of us know first-hand. The temptation might be to look for an acceptable middle-way but whatever elements of pragmatism might be brought to bear, the balance must be biblical and not the individual or collective preference.
So if the presbytery agrees on a levy in order to pay for its activities, it is no objection to say that because we (as leaders) don't make such demands of our members in the local church, we should not do it as a presbytery. As a matter of fact we do and we also decide how money should be spent, which doesn't remove some element of voluntarism. However, we pay for the ministry not directly as indviduals but together as a church by means of a central fund and that is something we commit to on becoming members. Our commitment might be voluntary but its entail isn't.
Our decision to join a church or denomination therefore might be authentically voluntary but once the decision is taken, self-determination is not an option. Our voluntary action puts us into the church and so 'place[s] [us] under the administration of that power' (Bannerman, vol.1 191). Joining up means signing up - not to authoritarianism - but to common thinking, speaking and doing. If elders must manage their households in order to care for the church, the analogy should not be lost - they must also manage the church with the authority of love.
When discipleship fails and our hearts grow cold, our leaders (the elders) fail, if they do not teach, exhort, encourage, rebuke and correct us. If the Presbytery is a wider expression of the church, the same principles will apply. Membership of Christ and of one another obliges us to co-operate as far as opportunity permits, and to submit to general policies 'rules and directions for the better ordering of public worship ... and government of [the] church ...' (WCF 31.2)
No comments:
Post a Comment