A (0:04)

Hello, and welcome to Doctrine Matters, a weekly podcast exploring the rich theology of the Christian faith. Each week we want to take hold of one aspect of our faith and try to understand theological concepts that sometimes have been debated, controversial, or maybe just hard to understand. And hopefully we can look at them in a way that is clear, concise, and accessible. The goal is that believers would be encouraged and edified and that God would be glorified so we can love him more, know him more, enjoy him forever. I'm Kevin DeYoung, your host and teacher, and this is Doctrine Matters. We have one last section on ecclesiology before we finish up with a few weeks at the end of this year on eschatology. And in this last section, we want to think about the question, who governs the church? Church polity, that is government, seems like a rather mundane, uninteresting question, and yet it's really more important than we realize. We're trying to answer the question, who has been given the right under Christ to exercise power within, for, and over the church? To put it very colloquially, we might say, where does the buck stop? Truman's famous saying on his desk, the buck stops here. Historically, we can think of them as four systems. Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Congregational, Presbyterian. I am a pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America. So he. You can guess that I will land on the fourth option. But let's work through these quickly. The Roman Catholic system of polity, it is also Episcopalian in that it has bishops. We'll come to that next. But in particular with Rome, they have the assertion that a superior title among the bishops was given to Peter and that that title was not personal but official, and that that official position is passed down from Peter to his successors. So this bishop of Rome, the supreme pontiff, is called the Pope. He's the head of the Roman Catholic Church around the world. Also, this is often overlooked. He is the sovereign of an independent state known as Vatican City. Arguments in favor of papal authority are not very convincing. Historically, there is no evidence Peter was in Rome, much less its bishop. More significantly, Jesus pronouncement, on this rock I will build my church. Matthew 16:18 did not mean to establish Peter as the soon to be head of the church. And even if the rock is Peter, I don't think Protestant and Catholic understanding, I don't think this is the continental divide on how you interpret that passage. Even if Jesus were saying, on you, Peter, I will build my church, I actually think the rock is Jesus himself. That's how the word rock is used throughout the New Testament. But even on that understanding that he means Peter, it's anachronistic to think that Jesus meant to confer upon Peter in that moment a unique role. That wasn't true of all the apostles and prophets. When Ephesians 2:20 says they are the foundation in the Church, it's very unlikely he was talking about Peter directly. Peter was hardly a rock. He was about to deny Christ the word Petros. Peter and Petra rock are not the same in person and gender. And why would Jesus say this rock instead of you, the rock, when in that passage he so often addresses Peter as you, you, you. There are other scriptural considerations that disallow this notion of Peter's superiority, even if he may have been an unofficial leader among the apostles. Think about the new Jerusalem. There are 12 foundations with the names of the 12 apostles. There's no supremacy there given to Peter. The power given to Peter in that Matthew 16: passage to bind and loose is later given to all disciples in Matthew 18. And importantly 1 Peter 5, Peter refers to himself as nothing more than a fellow elder. There are historical reasons we could trace out the development of the authority of the bishop of Rome. It was always an important bishopric because Rome was the the leading city in the empire. And yet it was not for the first centuries the leading city in the Christian world. There were bishops that were just as important, even perhaps more important, in Alexandria or Antioch, Jerusalem, certainly Constantinople. Never, as soon as there was Constantinople in the 4th century, never agreed with the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. Even the word pope, papa, father was given to other important bishoprics. You can go all the way into the Middle Ages. And Anselm is called a pope of another world who is the archbishop of Canterbury. So it's a developing historical phenomenon that the bishop of Rome would have this authority. And it's not there in the earliest centuries of the church in exclusivity to others. So what about this second option, Episcopalian? The distinguishing feature of an Episcopalian polity is the presence of bishops. Sometimes it's called prelacy. Prelacy, because of high ranking clergy, members are called prelates. Prelate, meaning to carry before or set above. The New Testament uses the word episcopoi, translated overseers. In the esv in several places, the question is whether this term refers to another ordinary and permanent office above elders and deacons. In Episcopalian polity, the bishop has two unique powers. He has the power of ordination and the power of jurisdiction. To put it another way, the bishop has authority over his diocese, and that power is not afforded to other officeholders. Now, the best argument in favor of bishops relies on the example of the apostles, their broad authority. And yet that superior function exercised by the apostles was in connection with the extraordinary temporary office of apostle. And we should not read the office of bishop back into that office. As I just said, Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the Church was apostles. By definition, a foundation is once for all. We no longer have apostles. Even more importantly, this distinctive peculiarity of episcopacy is that there exists a third order of officers, the episcopoi, to exercise power of ordination and jurisdiction not granted to the elders, the presbuteroi. So this is really the issue. Do the episcopoi have a power of ordination and jurisdiction not granted to the presbuteroi? And this is not the pattern we see in the New Testament. We know the elders participated in ordination, Acts 13:1 Timothy 4, that the ruling function was the normal function of the elder. We see from Acts 15 the elders came together with the apostles to exercise authority over more than one local church. In fact, the frequent pairing of elder with apostle shows that elders, not bishops, were going to carry on that apostolic mantle. And as I've said in some previous episodes, these two Greek words, presbuteroi, episcopoi, they are used interchangeably. They're used interchangeably in Acts 20, verse 17 and 18, where the pressbuteroi are later called episcopoi, and in Titus 1:5 and 7, where an overseer episkopos, is another way to refer to the elders, the presbuteroi. It's Also significant that 1st Timothy 3 details qualifications for two offices, not three speaks of the overseers and the deacons. Philippians 1:2 speaks of more than one overseer to philippi. And then there's the wider theological argument. The authority to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments is the chief power granted to under shepherds. It would be a strange logic to give the presbyters the greater power to preach and administer the sacraments, but not the lesser power to ordain and govern. That's the lesser power. For bishops to have that power and the presbyters not to be granted that power would be a strange thing. The elder pastor overseer is given authority to teach and to care for the church of God. Those two responsibilities cannot be separated and just a word. Historically, I would argue that we see the words bishop and pastor and presbyter used interchangeably, not only in Acts, but in the church. Bishop was often given to an especially important church as time would develop. And maybe it's what might be equivalent, you know, an honorary doctorate given to someone, doctor, you know, Reverend doctor, or a particular flagship congregation, or to distinguish the senior pastor. So we do see the language of bishops and they become very important. But it is not clear in those early centuries that the bishop has an authority that is distinct from the presbyters. Now this does develop, we must be honest with this. This system does develop. But is it there in the New Testament? And do we see examples of the words being used interchangeably for quite a number of centuries? In fact, I was just looking at a Presbyterian document from the 18th century and the beginning of the American Presbyterian Church, and they there used the word bishop and pastor at times interchangeably. So there's a history of. Of these terms being used to refer to the same office. Well, quickly we come to these last two options. Who governs the church? The congregation. Who governs the elders? There are differences here for sure, but there are also some overlap. So those churches that are congregational, so it'd be Baptist churches, free churches, non denominational churches going to be congregational, that they have a. The congregation exercises the authority to receive members, to discipline members. Now, in a healthy, robust, doctrinally informed congregational church, they're going to have elders. And those elders are going to carry out many of the same functions that elders carry out in a Presbyterian church. So we don't want to exaggerate the difference. And at the same time, in a Presbyterian church, even though the elders are given the final authority for membership and discipline, they too are going to be voted on upon the congregation. The congregation will have certain input. And depending on the particular denomination or policy, they may vote on the budget. They will certainly vote to elect the officers. They may or may not cast a deciding vote to call the pastor. They may have to approve the purchase of property. So even in a Presbyterian system, it isn't as if the elders are making all of the decisions in the church, but there are differences. At the heart of congregationalism lies two interlocking principles. Number one, a congregational principle which says the government of the church is administered with the authoritative concurrence of the whole church. So the elders may advise the congregation in important matters, they may execute the decisions. They may take the lead in all sorts of ways. But the final authority, especially in membership and discipline, rests with the members of the church. That's the congregational principle. The whole church will vote to receive and to dismiss or exercise discipline upon its members. And then there is the independency principle. The government of the church is administered independent of every other congregation. Now, churches may partner together in ministry. You have a Southern Baptist convention. And they may agree to certain doctrinal statements, partner together in church planting or in missionary endeavor. And there are various ways to have networks, whether they're called associations or networks or denominations. And they may even agree together to affirm certain doctrinal parameters. But the local congregation alone exercises power over its own affairs. Now, as a Presbyterian, I certainly appreciate the congregational emphasis upon the centrality of the local church and the role its members play. And yet I would argue biblical precedent and precepts point us away from these two principles, the congregational principle and the independency principle. I'll evaluate here. First, the congregational principle. The main difficulty, I would say, with the congregational principle is the unique authority granted to the entire elders. The titles rulers, overseer, shepherds, suggest a governing authority embedded in the presbyters not possessed by other members of the congregation. Those terms elder, shepherd, overseer, ruler, that specific function to govern implies that they have a responsibility as office bearers and an authority to exercise that is not given to all of the members. It's hard to see in my mind how the elders can be said to rule and oversee if their decisions are in the most important matters, subject to the majority vote of the congregation. We see in the Old Testament the role of the elders in Israel informally, later in the synagogue, more formally, was not one in which they merely advised the congregation or executed the plans of the congregation decided upon collectively. In fact, the instructions for binding and loosing are given to Peter and then to the 12, not to every disciple. We do not see private members of the church preaching. We do not see them ordaining who will preach. Christ has entrusted these keys of the kingdom to the elders, not to the entire membership. There's lots more we could say there, but running out of time. Let's just deal with this second principle, the independency principle. Remember Roman Catholic polity as a pope, Episcopalian polity, bishops, congregational polity, the authority of the congregation. Now, in Presbyterianism, the unique authority is granted to the elders. And here's the point. Contrary to the independency principle, Presbyterians believe that this elder authority is exercised not just at a local level. In a session they're usually called a board of elders, but in presbyteries. So the independency principle holds that the government of each local church is exercise independent of other churches. By contrast, Presbyterians believe there's warrant for the governing body of one congregation to unite with the governing body of another congregation or many others for the purpose of joint authority in the exercise of common rule. Two quick exegetical observations I would make in support of this Presbyterian conviction. 1. The word ekklesia can be used to mean more than one congregation. So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up there. From Acts 9, the church in Jerusalem must have consisted of various congregations. There were thousands being added to the church. The they couldn't all fit in one building. They had many apostles, prophets, elders, proto deacons ministering in the city. Surely there was more than one assembly, more than one worship service. And yet it's still called the church in Jerusalem. When relief came from Antioch for the church in Jerusalem, they sent the collection to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. I think there's an implication here, one church under a shared system of government. More importantly, think more clearly. I should say the second observation from the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Here's an example of a regional church assembly exercising authority over local congregations. If there is one passage, sort of the lodestar passage for Presbyterianism in its Presbyterian polity outside the local church, it is this passage with the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, the apostles and elders come together to determine the appropriate policy for welcoming Gentiles into the church. And it's true we have reference there to the whole church, but that is for the purpose of choosing the men to deliver the message. The theological matter at hand was adjudicated Acts 15:6 by the apostles and elders. And what they decided was not merely advice or just a letter to send down and say we had a meeting at a conference and here's what we think. Take it under advisement. But it was an authoritative determination meant to be followed in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. So here we have officers from one region of the church exercising authority over the various churches of that region. I think there's similar examples in Acts 6, Acts 13, Acts 21. Now it should be noted that church power and Presbyterianism flows up, not down, meaning the local church is a complete church of Christ and the higher judicatories are not meant to lord it over the lower assemblies. So this isn't a top down but a bottom up. It's not that there's a general assembly and they then allow the presbyteries who then allow the session, but rather you might say the heartbeat of it is there in the local church in the session. But coming together they also form presbyteries which can be called the Church and then at a higher level, the General Assembly. We might even think of them as general rather than higher assemblies. Some say higher, but it's really not a higher power, but the same power in a more general, broader exercise. The point here is how we think about Christ's government in the Church is, though not perhaps on the order of the doctrine of the Trinity is extremely practical and important, and every church will have to come to these conclusions. And you ought to do so with your Bibles open and perhaps you can think with your minds and your hearts and some good theological resources and determine and I might put in a good word for being a Presbyterian. Thanks for listening to Doctrine Matters with me. Kevin DeYoung Our hope and prayer is that this has been helpful to you as you look at Scripture and try to understand the best of our theological tradition as Christians. Please consider subscribing to doctor Matters through Spotify, Apple Music or however you listen to your podcasts. And if you'd like to learn more about this week's doctrine, can ask your pastor for good resources or check out my year long mini systematic theology book Daily Doctrine, which is available in print or audio@crossway.org until next week. Thanks for being with us.