How the church selects its leadership

Leaving the matters of norma, arbitration, and hermeneutics aside, here are some tantalizing snippets (homework is to follow up on these to discover their context) on how church leaders are selected.

Milton doesn't say what model of government is created, but does comment on the method used by which leaders are selected.  One implication here is that the congregation must know what they're doing.

Popular Election of Bishops by Congregations

If those that over-affect Antiquity will follow the square thereof, their Bishops must be elected by the hands of the whole Church. The ancientest of the extant Fathers Ignatius, writing to the Philadelphians saith that it belongs to them as to the Church of God to choose a Bishop. Let no man cavil, but take the Church of God as meaning the whole consistence of Orders and Members.

Cyprian—In the 68 mark but what he says, The people chiefly hath power, either of choosing worthy ones, or refusing unworthy.

Hearken what the whole general Council of Nicea the first and famousest of all the rest determines, writing a Synodal Epistle To the African Churches, to warn them of Arrianisme, it exhorts them to choose orthodox Bishops in the place of the dead so they be worthy, and the people choose them, whereby they seem to make the peoples assent so necessary that merit without their free choice were not sufficient to make a Bishop.

We may read how S. Martin soon after Constantine was made Bishop of Turon in France by the peoples consent.

Thus went matters of the Church almost 400 years after Christ, and very probably far lower, for Nicephorus Phocas the Greek Emperor, whose reign fell near the 1000 year of our Lord, having done many things tyrannically, is said by Cedrenus to have done nothing more grievous and displeasing to the people than to have inacted that no Bishop should be chosen without his will; so long did this right remain to the people in the midst of other palpable corruptions.

- Milton, Of Reformation

But later comes this big statement which leaves me wondering: 

Seeing that the Churchman's office is only to teach men the Christian Faith, to exhort all, to encourage the good, to admonish the bad, privately the less offender, publicly the scandalous and stubborn; to censure, and separate from the communion of Christ's flock the contagious, and incorrigible, to receive with joy and fatherly compassion the penitent; all this must be done, and more than this is beyond any Church authority.

Fine and well, but how does one arbitrate between disputes within a congregation, or just as important, between disputing congregations?  Suppose a Lutheran church and a Baptist church were to come into "full communion" with each other, allowing distinctiveness due to the law of liberty and "nihil obstat".  But then the issues of baptism and communion come up as an obstacle.  Both agree in Sola Scriptura -- the Bible is the norm, encapsulating the critical Regula Fide.  But who will arbitrate between the two?  More to the point: can they arbitrate fairly?  Does Christian love extend this far?

And how does church discipline get enforced between congregations?  If a church puts a member under church discipline, should there be a formal method for declaring this to other churches?

I'm not saying I disagree.  I'm just saying that there seems to be a bit more to it than that.  I'm not saying that Christendom necessarily needs a Monarch, or Council, or Convention.  

Let's say that I think the norm, the essential Regula Fide, has been figured out, in Sola Scriptura.  Let's say that I think hermeneutics is reasonably well-established, too.
 
But now, it seems the Church needs something, or somethings, that can arbitrate.  In general I am biased toward the Convention model, or a kind of intermittent Council model, but I need to think more about this.


John Wesley and Church Structure

John Wesley recognized the need for an organized system of communication and accountability and developed what he called the “connexion,” which was an interlocking system of classes, societies, and annual conferences.

The reason for this was, essentially, to efficiently spread the Gospel and handle church discipline.

No local church is the total body of Christ. Therefore, local United Methodist churches are bound together by a common mission and common governance that accomplish reaching out into the world.

Connectionalism shows through the clergy appointment system, through the developing of mission and ministry that United Methodists do together, and through giving.

Now, it seems to me that clergy appointment is not really needed to achieve efficient communication and to coordinate evangelization (and church planting).  The Cooperative Program of a Convention seems to me to be more friendly to congregational appointment of leaders -- quite possibly the Biblical model.

Catechism in the Bible

Something I've wanted to do is run a Perl script against the NT books, counting the frequency count of root words, and seeing what comes of it.

But really I'd like to pull catechism closer to the Bible.  After all, if the Bible is our authority, it should be self-validating.  Of course it is a collection of books, rather than a proper compendium with an index.  Do you suppose that early persecutions prevented these books from coming together?  But of course Polycarp used most of the NT, and Clement used books liberally as well -- and both quoted them liberally as authoritative words.  So we know they knew which books were authentic.  Anyway.

Looking for a catechism, we still have to treat the NT books as independent books, written to particular people for particular purposes.  For example, the gospels were written for all people, including unbelievers ("so that you may believe...").  That's the first hunk of a proto-catechism.

But the epistles were instructions and correctives written to the leadership of churches (and often explicitly to be circulated amongst the rest of Christendom) -- in this case, 1 Corinthians 15 lays down the gospel.  That's the next hunk of the proto-catechism, worthy of memorizing verbatim.  Moreover are other obvious teachings being circulated which the apostles approved of, in a few quotes, but also the entire book of Hebrews, which is so meaty it's not funny.

I could go on, but I don't have my thoughts collected.

An Orthodox Creed

I highly recommend this blog.  I could spend all day reading it. The one I read yesterday sparked me:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/orthodoxy-should-we-define-who-is-%e2%80%9cin%e2%80%9d-and-who-is-%e2%80%9cout%e2%80%9d/

The Bible has clear evidence that Christianity had a well-defined orthodoxy, and a developing creedal tradition, from the time of the apostles.

Pulling only the verses he quotes in his blog, I can sift out the following creedal elements.  As the author notes, it is a developing creed, not a fixed one.

The Christ is the son of the living God.
Christ died for our sins in accordance to the OT.
He was buried, and He was raised on the third day, in accordance with the OT.

Though he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,
being born in the likeness of men.

And being found in human form,
he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,
 even death on a cross.

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

If we die with Him, we will also live with Him;
If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Ecclesiology and Replacement Theology

I divided replacement theology into two pieces:

1. The Church is the institutional successor to Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, transforming Judaism into Christianity.  Rituals are transformed from instruments of law to instruments of grace. [2nd century]

2. The Church is the replacement of Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, but replaced Judaism with Christianity.  The old rituals were replaced by new physical instruments of grace. [Calvin, ~1535]


Here's why I think both are incorrect.  First, we have Jesus' words in his Sermon on the Mount:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; 

I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, 

not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, 

will by any means disappear from the Law 

until everything is accomplished.

 This is an insight into the fulfillment of the law by the cross of Christ.  As Paul explains:

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, 

locked up until faith should be revealed. 

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ 

that we might be justified by faith. 

Now that faith has come, we are no longer 

under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:23-25).

The law and its institutions, therefore, were designed to point to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

This is an illustration for the present time, indicating 

that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were 

not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 

They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—

external regulations applying until the time of the new order 

(Hebrews 9:10; read the whole section from verse 1 to get the full effect).

The conlcusion, then, when Jesus says "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" is that He is the fulfillment of the entire plan of God.

The reason we should believe that the old law is now truly fulfilled and done (and not just transformed) is here:

For he himself is our peace, 

who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, 

the dividing wall of hostility, 

by abolishing in his flesh the law 

with its commandments and regulations. 

His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, 

thus making peace,

 and in this one body to reconcile 

both of them to God through the cross, 

by which he put to death their hostility (Ephesians 2:14-16).

Ecclesiology: Wagging the Dog

Here are four views of the church, more or less, and how they imply particular doctrines.

1. The Church is the organic successor to Judaism.  In the fulfillment of the law, Jesus created something new.  The rituals of Judaism were physical shadows to illustrate the spiritual reality that is in the Church. [~1670]

2. The Church is the institutional successor to Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, transforming Judaism into Christianity.  Rituals are transformed from instruments of law to instruments of grace. [2nd century]

3. The Church is the replacement of Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, but replaced Judaism with Christianity.  The old rituals were replaced by new physical instruments of grace. [Calvin, ~1535]

4. The Church is completely different from Judaism. The Jews were under a different covenant, one of works, while this age is a covenant of grace.  Obedience to the present law is the yardstick of being saved. [Darby, ~1835]




We are fallible.

Ecclesiology and doctrine inform each other.  If you change your mind about what the Church is, your doctrine will probably eventually change.  Similarly, if you change your mind on certain points of doctrine, your view of the Church may eventually change as well.

We are imperfect. I'm perfectly capable of believing a doctrine that conflicts with my view of the Church, and vice versa.  Though it seems that one is eventually brought into line with the other.

Is it "wagging the dog" to derive your doctrine from what you believe about the Church?  That depends on you, and how certain you are of the authority you base belief on.



For example.  Though point #1 really only surfaces in the 1600s, it was implied in the Didache and early patristic writings via the rite of believer's baptism; i.e. to these early Christians, circumcision was not transformed into baptism, but rather was a shadow.

Celebrating Special Days, from Socrates of Constantinople

Reference: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 2, pp331+.

The main thrust of his argument is that being 'called into the liberty of sons' means we are not bound to a calendar. He draws from Galatians and Colossians to make his points.

Again in his epistle to the Colossians771 he distinctly declares, that such observances are merely shadows: wherefore he says, ‘Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbathdays; which are a shadow of things to come.’

The result is that individual believers (and local churches, I presume) are free to establish their own celebrations as they see fit.

Neither the apostles, therefore, nor the Gospels,773 have anywhere imposed the ‘yoke of servitude’774 on those who have embraced the truth; but have left Easter and every other feast to be honored by the gratitude of the recipients of grace. Wherefore, inasmuch as men love festivals, because they afford them cessation from labor: each individual in every place, according to his own pleasure, has by a prevalent custom celebrated the memory of the saving passion. The Saviour and his apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast: nor do the Gospels and apostles threaten us with any penalty, punishment, or curse for the neglect of it, as the Mosaic law does the Jews.

He sums it up nicely:

The aim of the apostles was not to appoint festival days, but to teach a righteous life and piety.

 Festivals and holy days can be good, but they are not the focus, nor is their particular date of observance or their coordination with other churches.

1 Clement and Justification

The church at Rome, appx 96 AD, explained to the church at Corinth why we do good works.

1Clem 32:1
   If any man will consider them one by one in sincerity, he shall 

understand the magnificence of the gifts that are given by Him. 

 1Clem 32:2
For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the
altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of
him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and
the rest of his tribes are held in no small honor, seeing that God
promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven. 

• The relationship is that of being heirs. 

 1Clem 32:3
They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through
themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they
wrought, but through His will. 

• They were glorified because they were heirs.

 1Clem 32:4
And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are
not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or
understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of
heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men
that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and
ever. Amen. 

• Just like the priests et al, we are justified because we are heirs.

• What's more, the mark by which we are known as heirs is faith. 

• It therefore looks like our justification is indicated by faith alone --

  although we shall see in a moment that it is accompanied by works.

 1Clem 33:1
   What then must we do, brethren? Must we idly abstain from doing
good, and forsake love? May the Master never allow this to befall us
at least; but let us hasten with instancy and zeal to accomplish
every good work. 

• This is exactly Paul's argument in Romans. 

  Work is contingent upon, and proves, our faith.

 1Clem 33:2
For the Creator and Master of the universe Himself rejoiceth in His
works.

...

1Clem 34:1
   The good workman receiveth the bread of his work with boldness, but
the slothful and careless dareth not look his employer in the face. 

I Clement and the appointment of elders

Here's how the church at Rome saw the appointment of elders.  The letter was probably written around 96 AD, primarily to comdemn the church at Corinth for deposing perfectly good leaders.

1Clem 44:1
   And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop's office.

1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.