"Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ's Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament."
In this section of the BF&M we find an articulation of the approval of "associations" and "cooperations" between churches and different Christian organizations, within an overall framework of what is historically a very central doctrine for Baptists: the autonomy of the local church ("Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches"; "Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation..."; etc.).
I don't intend to give a full critique of congregationalist church government here, nor to give a full articulation and defense of Presbyterian polity. I'll just say that I believe the ideas of cooperation, co-belligerence, and informal associations are operative even within Presbyterian circles; 'NAPARC', or the 'National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches' is one such association, within which distinct denominations which have no ecclesial authority over one another's churches have voluntarily chosen to associate because of the large overlap of our doctrinal and ecclesial commitments. Moreover, it is not uncommon for many 'NAPARC' churches to engage with, support, host conferences with, and associate in various ways with churches and Christian organizations beyond our official ecclesial bounds, for the extension of the kingdom in various areas. This is wise, so long as it follows the principle articulated at the end of the BF&M section here: "when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ..."
Commenting briefly on forms of church government, there have historically been three broad approaches, with nuanced different expressions within each: episcopal (rule by singular regional bishops in a hierarchical fashion), presbyterian (rule by groups of elders in graded courts), and congregational (autonomous local churches, led more or less authoritatively by a group of elders usually). Arguments in favor of congregational polity include appeals to the church discipline procedure in Matthew 18 and a strong emphasis on the priesthood of all believers; while the crucial role of the office of elder is usually acknowledged by Baptists, there is a very strong desire to protect the biblical idea that all believers have an "equal footing" in Christ, and that a local, visible body of believers should be sufficient to judge and govern itself in matters of doctrine and discipline. There are probably a lot of other strong arguments for congregationalism that I'm no expert on.
Again, ecclesiology is not my particular expertise, and I would likely lose a debate in this area if arguing with a well-educated Baptist or Anglican, but I'd be remiss if I didn't at least offer a very brief sketch of some overlapping key arguments in favor of presbyterian polity (which can each be debated in much greater detail, no doubt):
a) connectionalism: the way the New Testament refers to visible church bodies includes language that assumes the category of a discernible regional church beyond individual "local" churches; Paul also assumes that individual churches have formal responsibility for the good of other churches, by means of financial and prayer support (this argument supports episcopalianism equally with presbyterianism); Acts 15 also, while not a strictly "prescriptive" passage, shows elders coming together to make authoritative top-down decisions for regional churches (always based on application of Scripture, not arbitrary, rogue decrees--ecclesial authority is only and ever "ministerial" and "declarative" according to the PCA Book of Church Order)
b) terminology: "bishop/overseer," "elder/presbyter," and "pastor/shepherd" are used interchangeably in the New Testament to refer to the same office that carries out the fundamental, authoritative spiritual leadership within in a church body (this may count against episcopalian polity, barring certain interpretations of a few passages of Acts and Revelation, and it has to be admitted that regional singular "bishops" existed very early on in the Christian church era)
c) history of office of elder: groups of elders governing at levels of both individual local congregations and larger regional churches, in a system of graded courts, seems to be the assumed norm of the New Testament (note it was the "apostles and elders" debating the issues at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 and then handing down joint recommendations, rather than any apostle simply pontificating authoritatively, as would have been an apostle's right); moreover, the office of elder was not a New Testament invention but was instituted first under Moses (with no explicit change in the NT), and involved popular election (bottom-up selection for representation), ordination (top-down installation), and smaller and larger groups of responsibility (graded courts)--see the review in Deut. 1:9-17
d) visible unity: Jesus prayed for Christian unity in the "high priestly prayer" of John 17, and far from it being a merely "spiritual," it is to be an increasingly visible unity, by which the world will be convinced that Jesus really came from the Father; obviously, Christians have a long way to go in achieving this, but it will happen in history (Eph. 4:11-13)
e) one and many: as a more general consideration, it is to be noted that presbyterianism at least sees itself as attempting to hold an ideal balance between the "one" and the "many," because of a) the biblical pattern of God's covenant dealings in Scripture embracing groups of people (families, nations, kingdoms, etc.--even covenants made in one sense with individuals always implicate others as well...consider the so-called "Abrahamic" and "Davidic" covenants which involve Abraham's entire household and David's descendants), in covenant solidarity; and ultimately b) in reflection of the Triune nature of God Himself, who, as one Being in three Persons, covenanted eternally within Himself to carry out creation and redemption, for the display of His glory.
To Presbyterians (and likely to episcopalians of whatever stripe), congregational church polity smacks more of modernist individualism than of a biblical mindset of corporate covenantal accountability. But to be fair, to Baptists, presbyterianism and episcopalianism likely often smack of dangerous authoritarianism and sacerdotalism, compromising the priesthood-of-believers doctrine.
To be honest, there are pragmatic advantages and disadvantages to each system, and every denomination executes the designs of the system they hold to with less than ideal success (or consistency). Baptists organizations sometimes functionally exercise authority over individual churches that formally they don't claim to have, and believe you me, there are Presbyterian churches that find interesting ways around the supposedly authoritative determinations of their presybteries, synods, and national assemblies. But how well a particular system of church government is implemented is not the final criterion of whether it's a good system. Nor is church government to be regarded as "adiaphora" to be determined by mere pragmatic concerns and individual preferences. Some rather specific principles of church government are revealed in Scripture in a prescriptive enough manner that we must study them, argue them out charitably between each other, submit to them, and implement them by the wisdom given by the Holy Spirit more and more, under the one and only Head of the church, Christ Himself.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Monday, June 24, 2019
Baptist Faith & Message Ch. 13 "Stewardship"
[Yep, still slowly going through and interacting with the BF&M; once done, will decide whether to do similarly with the Augsburg Confession (a Lutheran document), the 39 Articles, or the Westminster Standards next]
"God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions; and should recognize all these as entrusted to them to use for the glory of God and for helping others. According to the Scriptures, Christians should contribute of their means cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally for the advancement of the Redeemer's cause on earth."
This section of the BF&M is rather straightforward and unobjectionable from my perspective. Indeed every good gift comes from God, and He expects a multiplication of the "talents" with which He entrusts us. Or, to use another scriptural metaphor, we, having received the implanted seed of the word of the gospel, are to bear fruit for the kingdom of God (or risk proving ourselves dead branches ready to be cut from the vine and discarded--John 15). This includes our having been entrusted with the gospel message (and the oracles of God found in Scripture, more broadly), our material possessions, and our "natural" and Spiritual gifts and abilities.
An approach to earthly wealth framed by the concept of "stewardship" protects us from dual errors. On one side, it affirms a real ownership of private property, proper to image bearers of God, implicitly rejecting any notion of universal ownership of material goods. On the other side, it reminds us that in the cosmic final analysis, no image-bearer ultimately owns anything, even his or her own body (much to the chagrin of some, in our culture of would-be absolute bodily autonomy). Wives own their husbands' bodies, and husbands their wives' (1 Cor. 7). Christ owns the bodies of all His people. God owns the body and possessions of every image-bearer--even the "cattle on a thousand hills." Moreover, Christ's people are to, in principle (and in a degree of orderly practice, with oversight) share their goods in common with each other--at least be ready and willing to sacrificially share property and wealth with other brothers and sisters in Christ at the drop of a hat. No earthly creature possesses pure, absolute ownership of anything except sin. But real stewardship means real sub-ownership with an obligation to neighbor and especially to the household of God.
When it comes to giving directly to the cause of the Church's mission ("the advancement of the Redeemer's cause on earth"), this section of the BF&M does not specify whether all, or a majority, of this giving should go toward the support of the local church. Nor does it commit to a continuing New Testament "tithe" principle specifying 10% of income (however that's defined precisely) as the minimum amount required for giving in general, or to the local church, for each individual Christian. Most people coming from a Reformed perspective would take issue with this and affirm a more strictly continuous obligation of "tithing," based on a tri-partite distinction of the Mosaic Law (wherein the "moral norms" continue largely unmodified into the NT period in every instance), and based on verses from Proverbs, and other OT passages that refer to a tithe of the "firstfruits" of harvest belonging to the Lord. Jesus, after all, fundamentally affirmed the continuing validity of the Law (Matt. 5:17ff).
I appreciate the bold Reformed commitment to all of Scripture being applicable to Christians today, and the strong upholding of our commitment to give (as the BF&M says) "systematically" and "proportionately" to Christ's cause in a specific way. However, I remain slightly skeptical that the strict "10% minimum" is an appropriate eschatological paradigm for practicing or teaching NT giving; in fact, I am somewhat skeptical that the tithing commandments in the Mosaic Law (which in fact were somewhat more complicated than simply "10% of annual income") applied even then to classes of people below wealthy land-owners. Nevertheless, it is crystal clear that the NT expects generous, sacrificial, cheerful giving, and arguably "systematic and proportionate" giving "as each has decided in his heart." I agree with what many preachers have stated, namely, that the "tithe" rule was a starting point and part of the "training wheels" of the people of God, and that New Covenant generosity should in theory extend well beyond that number for those who are able. After all, an investment in eternal realities, under the direction of a sovereign God who is heaven-bent on fulfilling His purpose for the nations, is a risk-free investment that will reward greatly.
I do think it makes sense in general for the majority of a Christian's giving to go toward the local church's funds and efforts. The support of ministers of the Word, the local discipleship ministry, and the local mercy ministry, of one's own church seem like legitimate priorities. However, in thinking through these things for myself, I have realized how complicated individual situations can be. For example, I participate in a Christian healthcare cost sharing ministry (in lieu of health insurance). The level of the program in which I participate involves a fairly significant chunk of change monthly, which would likely "bulk up" my giving to my local church if I participated in a more conventional insurance program. This money, though, goes to support the healthcare needs of other Christians--just not often Christians within my formal, local covenant body. Perhaps the ideal would be that each local church (and Presbytery, or Synod, or whatever the governing structures happen to be) would have its own "healthcare cost sharing program" wherein its members support each other directly, and primarily. But the reality is that currently, while the deacons at my church do consider and attend to the needs of our members via the mercy ministry fund, they cannot carry on the kind of full-scale ministry that Samaritan Ministries or Christian Healthcare Ministries can, negotiating discounts with healthcare providers and the like.
All this to say that I appreciate the BF&M's emphasis on NT principles of generous New Covenant era giving (over against spelling out a detailed program of giving minimums, etc.), and agree with the way they are stated here. I must confess, while I sometimes wonder about other aspects of my own financial situation (involving a good chunk of debt still, at which I am slowly chipping away), in my heart I know I have not been fulfilling my vows to my local church regarding support lately the way I should. Christian stewardship should be a freeing, spiritually restful concept, delivering us from preoccupation with earthly wealth or legacy. For it to be freeing though, it requires faith and diligent obedience. So may the Lord forgive me my negligence, and grant you, and especially me, an increase of His Spirit so that we can be more generous givers, reflecting the God who gave us nothing less than all of Himself in the Person of His Son.
"God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions; and should recognize all these as entrusted to them to use for the glory of God and for helping others. According to the Scriptures, Christians should contribute of their means cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally for the advancement of the Redeemer's cause on earth."
This section of the BF&M is rather straightforward and unobjectionable from my perspective. Indeed every good gift comes from God, and He expects a multiplication of the "talents" with which He entrusts us. Or, to use another scriptural metaphor, we, having received the implanted seed of the word of the gospel, are to bear fruit for the kingdom of God (or risk proving ourselves dead branches ready to be cut from the vine and discarded--John 15). This includes our having been entrusted with the gospel message (and the oracles of God found in Scripture, more broadly), our material possessions, and our "natural" and Spiritual gifts and abilities.
An approach to earthly wealth framed by the concept of "stewardship" protects us from dual errors. On one side, it affirms a real ownership of private property, proper to image bearers of God, implicitly rejecting any notion of universal ownership of material goods. On the other side, it reminds us that in the cosmic final analysis, no image-bearer ultimately owns anything, even his or her own body (much to the chagrin of some, in our culture of would-be absolute bodily autonomy). Wives own their husbands' bodies, and husbands their wives' (1 Cor. 7). Christ owns the bodies of all His people. God owns the body and possessions of every image-bearer--even the "cattle on a thousand hills." Moreover, Christ's people are to, in principle (and in a degree of orderly practice, with oversight) share their goods in common with each other--at least be ready and willing to sacrificially share property and wealth with other brothers and sisters in Christ at the drop of a hat. No earthly creature possesses pure, absolute ownership of anything except sin. But real stewardship means real sub-ownership with an obligation to neighbor and especially to the household of God.
When it comes to giving directly to the cause of the Church's mission ("the advancement of the Redeemer's cause on earth"), this section of the BF&M does not specify whether all, or a majority, of this giving should go toward the support of the local church. Nor does it commit to a continuing New Testament "tithe" principle specifying 10% of income (however that's defined precisely) as the minimum amount required for giving in general, or to the local church, for each individual Christian. Most people coming from a Reformed perspective would take issue with this and affirm a more strictly continuous obligation of "tithing," based on a tri-partite distinction of the Mosaic Law (wherein the "moral norms" continue largely unmodified into the NT period in every instance), and based on verses from Proverbs, and other OT passages that refer to a tithe of the "firstfruits" of harvest belonging to the Lord. Jesus, after all, fundamentally affirmed the continuing validity of the Law (Matt. 5:17ff).
I appreciate the bold Reformed commitment to all of Scripture being applicable to Christians today, and the strong upholding of our commitment to give (as the BF&M says) "systematically" and "proportionately" to Christ's cause in a specific way. However, I remain slightly skeptical that the strict "10% minimum" is an appropriate eschatological paradigm for practicing or teaching NT giving; in fact, I am somewhat skeptical that the tithing commandments in the Mosaic Law (which in fact were somewhat more complicated than simply "10% of annual income") applied even then to classes of people below wealthy land-owners. Nevertheless, it is crystal clear that the NT expects generous, sacrificial, cheerful giving, and arguably "systematic and proportionate" giving "as each has decided in his heart." I agree with what many preachers have stated, namely, that the "tithe" rule was a starting point and part of the "training wheels" of the people of God, and that New Covenant generosity should in theory extend well beyond that number for those who are able. After all, an investment in eternal realities, under the direction of a sovereign God who is heaven-bent on fulfilling His purpose for the nations, is a risk-free investment that will reward greatly.
I do think it makes sense in general for the majority of a Christian's giving to go toward the local church's funds and efforts. The support of ministers of the Word, the local discipleship ministry, and the local mercy ministry, of one's own church seem like legitimate priorities. However, in thinking through these things for myself, I have realized how complicated individual situations can be. For example, I participate in a Christian healthcare cost sharing ministry (in lieu of health insurance). The level of the program in which I participate involves a fairly significant chunk of change monthly, which would likely "bulk up" my giving to my local church if I participated in a more conventional insurance program. This money, though, goes to support the healthcare needs of other Christians--just not often Christians within my formal, local covenant body. Perhaps the ideal would be that each local church (and Presbytery, or Synod, or whatever the governing structures happen to be) would have its own "healthcare cost sharing program" wherein its members support each other directly, and primarily. But the reality is that currently, while the deacons at my church do consider and attend to the needs of our members via the mercy ministry fund, they cannot carry on the kind of full-scale ministry that Samaritan Ministries or Christian Healthcare Ministries can, negotiating discounts with healthcare providers and the like.
All this to say that I appreciate the BF&M's emphasis on NT principles of generous New Covenant era giving (over against spelling out a detailed program of giving minimums, etc.), and agree with the way they are stated here. I must confess, while I sometimes wonder about other aspects of my own financial situation (involving a good chunk of debt still, at which I am slowly chipping away), in my heart I know I have not been fulfilling my vows to my local church regarding support lately the way I should. Christian stewardship should be a freeing, spiritually restful concept, delivering us from preoccupation with earthly wealth or legacy. For it to be freeing though, it requires faith and diligent obedience. So may the Lord forgive me my negligence, and grant you, and especially me, an increase of His Spirit so that we can be more generous givers, reflecting the God who gave us nothing less than all of Himself in the Person of His Son.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)