Confession Study: 2LCF Chapter 26
It does so at least 12 times. the proper subject, but in at least 12 occasions the name of Christ is used, whether by the name itself or by the language of he or himself. The church is under Christ, the head thereof. We are to render obedience unto God by Christ. Christ always hath had a kingdom in this world.
The Lord Jesus Christ is head of the church. The Lord Jesus calleth out of the world sinners to himself that constitute the church. The call of Christ that's in view with regards to populating the church with saints, according to the appointment of Christ, it refers to his mind declared in the word that Christ has, as mediator, been given authority by God for the headship of the church. It speaks with regards to according to the mind of Christ, appointed by Christ, the way appointed by Christ, the service of Christ, the express order of our Lord, the rule of Christ, the one who is to be waited upon, the churches of Christ, and again, according to the mind of Christ.
So the church is about Christ. It is the Christian church, after all. We get our namesake from the one who is altogether lovely and chief among 10,000, and so it's right that the chapter on the Church has not the Church so much in view as the prime object of love and affection, but Christ, the one who is the head thereof. I think it's worth noting that all previous chapters do converge here.
Not just that 1 through 25 ultimately lead to 26, but notice, for example, paragraph 5. We have all of the previous heads of doctrine meeting here in chapter 26. In the execution of this power wherewith he is so entrusted, the Lord Jesus, first of all notice, the Lord Jesus, then by his spirit, then those given unto him by his father. We see the doctrine of God as primary in behind, foundationally, the doctrine of the Church.
We see the doctrine of the Word. Notice, through the ministry of His Word, Jesus calleth out of the world sinners to Himself that constitute the Church. So the doctrine of the Scriptures. So the stuff of paragraph chapter one, the stuff of paragraph two.
Notice the stuff of paragraph three, excuse me, I keep confusing paragraph and chapter. Chapter three, that is of election, Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself. Notice those that are given unto him by his father. So we have the word, God, election, and notice that we have the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself through the ministry of the word.
We have all of those chapters on the doctrine of salvation in the background there, sort of summarily contained, summed up in this language of Jesus calling them out of the world by his word and spirit, and causing them to walk before him in all the ways of obedience. So all the way from chapter 1, all the way through to chapter 25, we arrive now at chapter 26, and chapter 26 is taking all the blessed content that preceded it, and bringing it all together in this doctrine of the Church. The Word, the Triune God, the Mediator of the Covenant, Salvation, Good Works, Law, all finding their confluence here in the chapter concerning the Church.
Introduction
So what we're going to do this morning, like I had mentioned, is we're not going to look at every paragraph. We will look at some of the contents of the paragraphs, but we're going to look at church polity or church government, the various forms and approaches to church government, whether in history or contemporaneous to ourselves, and then what the confession is arguing as far as the biblical model of church government. It's good to note that the whole chapter could be outlined largely by two, in two ways, or not in two ways, by two larger heads. It could be organized as first, what is the church?
Paragraphs one to four. And then, what does the church look like? Paragraphs five to 15. So, paragraphs one to four could answer the question, what is the church?
And then, what does it look like? Five to 15. Largely, the universal or Catholic church is a as we read here in paragraph one in verses one to four, and then the local expression and government of those churches, what that is to look like in paragraphs five through 15. So let's have a look at, let's consider various approaches to church government. and then what the particular Baptists see as the biblical model of church government.
When we talk about church government, we're simply talking about one of the parts of ecclesiology, one of the significant parts of the ecclesiology. What does Christ say in his word? How does Christ say in his word that the church ought to be governed? How ought it to look? how ought it to conduct itself.
It's noteworthy that this chapter in the Second London Confession of Faith is three times, approximately, larger than the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration. If you look online at a tabular comparison of the Westminster, the Savoy, and the Second London. The organizers of the websites will smuggle in the Savoy work on church polity, which was separate from its declaration of faith. There are really only, I think, five paragraphs in the Savoy Declaration, and then they append it or supplement it with a portion on church polity, which itself is very good. with the exception of smuggling in infants into those who constitute the church or members of the church.
But the confessions, all of that to say, the confession of the particular Baptist is significantly larger and articulates some important things with regards to Christ's church.
Five Models of Church Government
So the forms of church government, and all of these are in existence today, and all of these in one form or another have existed since the outset of the church.
Erastianism: The Magistrate in the Pulpit
The first is Erastianism, and we could summarize this by saying the magistrate in the pulpit, as a cute little defining clause. Erastianism says that the civil ruler, or is marked by the fact that the civil ruler claims headship over the church, so the civil magistrate is in essence, the head of the church. Some examples of this, though the first of these is a combination of this approach to church government and the second, but an example of Erastianism would be seen in the Church of England. The monarch is the head of the church, whether it's the queen or the king, the monarch is head of the church.
European state churches are also Erastian, probably most notably the Lutheran church. The Lutheran church claims or has as a particular church tenet, whether it you know, whether it bleeds out practically in the life of the church or not, doctrinally, the Lutheran church, and also versions of Westminsterian Presbyterianism. There's a, there's a mouthful. Just wait till you get to what we would call our particular Baptist approach to church government.
It's a mouthful too, but a, but a good one. But Westminsterian Presbyterianism in the Westminster Confession of Faith in its chapter on the civil magistrate, it essentially argues for, and there are many approaches or interpretations, but it essentially argues for the state's involvement in church governance. So to one degree or another, depending upon your expression of Presbyterianism, there were many at the at the Westminster Assembly who would have argued for a significant state involvement in church polity. So, Erastianism, the civil ruler claims headship over the church.
Obviously, that is a confounding of the kingdoms of this world with the kingdoms of Christ. The church keys are, if you will, seized by Caesar, and they're not put in the hands of those who should have them, that is, the officers of the churches. Well, Christ, of course, has them, but as we read in Matthew 16 and elsewhere, Christ gives them to the church for her governance. The confession against that ascribes all authority to Christ alone.
Notice in paragraph four, the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church. So that statement in and of itself, but then, in whom by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the church is invested in a notice, a supreme and sovereign manner. I say that because that brings us to paragraph 7, where we see that Christ, in that sovereign and supreme reality, gives power and authority for the carrying out of church to the churches. Notice in paragraph 7. to each of these churches thus gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he hath given all that power and authority which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order and worship and discipline which he hath instituted for them to observe." So this is positively affirming the headship of Christ over individual churches, and it is in essence implicitly excluding the Erastian approach or the civil magistrate rule approach to church government.
Episcopalianism: Prelacy and Power
A second approach to church government would be what's called Episcopalianism. Another mouthful. We love our isms and our five syllable words. Episcopalianism is If we define Erastianism by the magistrate in the pulpit, we could define Episcopalianism as prelacy and power.
It's a hierarchical approach to church government, men in big hats, a hierarchy of bishops governing many churches. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church is an Episcopalian church as far as its approach to church government. Again, with them, it's a pope. Underneath the pope, arch cardinals.
Underneath that, cardinals. Underneath that, arch bishops. Underneath those, bishops. Underneath those, various priests and prelates and other other person.
So it's a hierarchical, top-down approach to church government. The Eastern Orthodox Church would be Episcopalian in its church government. They would not have a Pope at the top, but they would have a sort of a college, if you will, of bishops. It's a collegial top authority where it's not one man invested with power over the church, but it's multiple men invested with this higher power, and then it folds down regionally from there. the Anglican Communion, or again, the Church of England.
They're a combination of Erastianism and Episcopalianism. It's the monarch as the head of the church, but then a hierarchical structure of bishoprics and bishops governing over various regions and areas. Methodists, to a certain degree, and have been Episcopalian as well. The error with regards to Episcopalianism is, of course, it introduces an order that's foreign to the Holy Scriptures.
When we read the Scriptures, we find nothing of Episcopalianism or governance by a hierarchical structure. In fact, Christ himself says, it's not going to be like that amongst you. It's not going to be like Gentile rule, where you have a hierarchical structure that's imposed upon society and it's sort of an imperialism, an imperial approach to government. It's not going to be like that.
And we see that in the apostolic letters. We don't see the Apostle Paul, we don't see Peter. I would say more the Apostle Paul, of course, because 1 Timothy, Titus, and other places, but we don't see Paul talking about popes and cardinals and bishops and this hierarchical structure and parishes and diocese and all that sort of a thing, we see the simplicity, the blessed biblical simplicity of appoint elders in every town, appoint elders and deacons, and then just an independent approach to churches and how churches ought to carry themselves about. As well, we see what we'll see in a number of minutes, the Apostle Paul really engendering what we call associationalism amongst the churches in 1 Corinthians and we see it in the book of Acts as well with regards to churches coming together for a common cause to alleviate the certain financial and other woes of churches amongst the nation.
We would, not just as particular Baptists, but as Protestants and as those seeking to be faithful to the word, rebuke such an approach to church government for inventing offices and denying the sufficiency of the local church. A third approach, and I'm not at all going from worst to best or anything like that, we're just treating these, if we could say what the worst is, it's probably Episcopalianism, but anyway, we plot on. The third approach to church government, I'm putting these together because really it is largely Presbyterianism, but Presbyterianism or reformed church polity. So the Westminsterians of England, Scotland, the island of Europe, and then also the continent as well, so the Dutch Reformed churches.
Largely Presbyterian, though, Reformed church polity amongst the Dutch churches and others that would hold to the three forms of unity. While it is a species of Presbyterianism, it is a little bit different. But largely speaking, assemblies of elders govern all churches in connection with one another. The distinguishing characteristic between Presbyterians and Reformed churches, when I say that I mean like the Dutch Reformed and that sort of a thing, would be that the Presbyterian churches are usually, there's usually a standing Presbyterian court, whereas with the Dutch Reformed churches there are only a church court or a session when they are in session, a synod when it's actually called.
It's not a standing Presbyterianism. It's only when the various consistories come together. I think some, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but they're called a classus in some in a lot of the contexts. So you have a, like Presbyterianism, where you'd have the sessions, which are the local churches.
You would then have the presbytery, which would be the next level up. You'd then have the synod, and then at the top would be the general assembly. And Presbyterianism, it's usually, that's a standing structure that's always operative. Amongst the Dutch Reformed churches, you would have the consistory, which was which would be similar to the sessions.
Then you'd have the classus, which would be not standing, but convened upon a calling or a particular measure of order, usually driven by the consistories. And then you'd have a synod at the top, which would be, again, not standing like the Presbyterian, but only upon a particular measure or a calling of those particular sessions. So it's similar, but there are some subtle differences. So the Presbyterian churches, examples, of course, of Presbyterianism, the Westminsterians, any three-forms reformed churches, again, though the reformed churches are Presbyterian only by a broader assembly and not by a higher court.
There's in principle a sort of a a temporary nature and ebbing and flowing to the reality of their flavor of Presbyterianism. There's some strengths in that, you know, there's some strengths in the parity of elders, the seriousness of discipline and defensive doctrine, so it's not that it's terrible in any way, there are some particular strengths to that, but I think we would see that the strengths are in practice and not in the principle of those aspects of church government. There is a binding of local churches to extrinsic courts, so the local churches themselves aren't necessarily immediately under Christ as their head, they're immediately under an extrinsic body, whether it's temporary or permanent, and that is found nowhere in the proper ebb and flowing of the Christian church in the Word of God. some distinctions perhaps in the Book of Acts, where for a time, as far as there is an apostolate, an apostolic office, there is a different sort of approach to church governance, because it's the building up of the church, it's putting troops in place, it's putting things in place, and then we see at the end of the pastoral epistles, or the end of Paul's life, where now it's pastors, excuse me, elders and deacons, in the churches for the good of the church under Christ as the chief shepherd. So we would, well, moving on.
Presbyterianism better than Episcopalianism, but still not the proper biblical model of church governance.
Denominationalism: Bureaucracy Without a Bishop
The fourth, before we get to our own, the fourth is denominationalism. Denominationalism, and we might call this bureaucracy without a bishop. Denominationalism, while there still are local churches, they're part of, you may expect this word to follow, a denomination. denominations organized under boards, associations, or conventions. You can think of one of the biggest examples in the world, which would be the Southern Baptist Convention.
That would be an example of a denominationalistic approach to church governance, where, yes, it's still local churches, but there is a board, a body, an association, some sort of convention above, that has, I can't say dictates or impositions, but that has some measure of authority over the local churches and you can be included in or kicked out of the association or the convention. But there is some organizing principle that exists above the local church, so it could not be said that Christ hath given all that power and authority to the local churches that is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline. But rather, there is a deference to a body that exists above themselves. the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God, the Church of the Nazarene, Calvary Chapel, though to a softer degree, and modern Mennonites. Historical Mennonites would probably have fallen more into our camp, which we'll get to next, but modern Mennonites seem to fall under that rubric of denominationalism.
So moving on then to
Congregationalism and Independency
the fifth and the final, not necessarily exhausting perhaps, but this really contains within a measure the breadth of the Christian church and its approaches to church governance. But the fifth and the one that we fall under, largely speaking, and then we'll hone in a little bit more, is called Congregationalism or Independency. Congregationalism or independency, and we could say, though of course we have the benefit of the moment, that this is the crown rites of King Jesus as the nice phrase to wrap up the approach to church governance of this one. It's under Christ's headship, Paragraph four, as the supreme and sovereign one who has all power and authority for church governance, but who gives it according to his mind, declared in the word, gives that power and authority to the churches who are subordinate to his high headship.
An excellent book that I would commend to you that touches this subject is Edification and Beauty by Dr. James Renahan. Edification and Beauty, The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705. It's in the series Studies in Baptist History and Thought.
Excellent treatment of the subject. There's also a book that he published more recently called Faith and Life for Baptists, which includes a number of documents of the General Assemblies, in and around the General Assemblies of the particular Baptists in the 1690s, and earlier, but largely the 1690s. It includes our Confession of Faith in it, I believe, the Baptist Catechism, and other Baptist gold. So back to Congregationalism, the crown rites of King Jesus, here we would have some distinguishing characteristics which are as follows, and which our confession brings out.
First, a desired, of course, but a plurality of elders. This approach to church governance, congregationalism or independency, was the church government of John Owen and the Congregationalists or the Independents. They were the closest, you know, reformed cousins to the particular Baptists and would still be. in the 17th century and today. Really, the only difference would be the inclusion of infants in their church membership in sacramentology baptism.
But plurality of elders is a key mark amongst the Congregationalists or Independents. The Savoy churches, like their Baptist cousins, held firmly to a plurality of elders in each congregation. With the Savoyans, they distinguished more than the Baptists did between teaching elders and ruling elders. Largely, the particular Baptists had no such distinction, though there were some differences, but largely the model amongst the particular Baptists was that there was no distinguishing between teaching elders and ruling elders.
And we may say doctrinally, practically the way it works out, given vocations and that sort of a thing, sometimes it turned out differently. But largely speaking, parity and plurality of elders. Church autonomy is important, and we get that from the confession of faith. As we read more than once the stuff of paragraph seven, Each congregation is a complete Church of Christ, not a fragment or a district of a larger ecclesiastical body.
The whole power of government is in the hands of the local assembly. With this, we have Christ's headship maintained, and when I say that, I don't mean to say that the Presbyterians or those of the reformed church polity somehow don't see Christ as head of the church. Obviously, they do, and they argue for that faithfully. Just in their practical execution of church government, it's not as pure as the particular Baptist's approach to the headship of Christ, who then, to the subordinate authority of the church under him, confers all power.
Not just some of the power, but all power. There is no extrinsic body above them, however much connected, that is involved in their governance. Voluntary synods is something that is a mark and a an attribute of congregationalism or independency. We have those, we may not call them synods, but it would be okay to call them that.
I think it's a great word. Coming from two Greek words, it simply means to walk together. And so I think the word synod is good, and could we use it? Sure.
We call them assemblies or general assemblies, associational gatherings, that sort of a thing. You could use them even more technically for the stuff of paragraph 15 of the chapter. But all that to say, churches are encouraged to hold synods and councils for the resolving of difficulties and the promoting of unity. There's an important distinction here, of course, between congregationalism, or independency, and Presbyterianism.
These assemblies that we would hold possess no coercive power, they declare the mind of Christ and they don't impose a ruling upon the churches. The stuff of the last sentences there of paragraph 15, how be it these messengers assembled are not entrusted with any church power properly so-called or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves to exercise any centers either over any churches or persons or to impose their determination on the churches or officers. So voluntary, voluntary synods. One of the things that it should be sort of a watch phrase or a watch principle is the fact that as independents, as congregationalists, we're ever watchful to avoid On one end, the yoke of Presbyterian assemblies, but also on the other end, the dangerousness of isolation. the dangerousness of isolating ourselves from others.
The Bible does not impose a hard independency that it's independency equals sign isolationism, but rather, as we'll see, we are to hold communion with one another, with other like-minded churches, and not just that loosely, but officially and practically and functionally. This is a quote from the Savoy form of church government. It says, synods may not impose their determinations by way of authority over the churches, but shall with brotherly affection and in a spirit of meekness propound their advice for consideration. So there is no lordship held by one church over another church or a set of appointed delegates over a particular church.
Plural Elder-Led Associational Congregationalism
Now, what we may call, and I am taking this from, not verbatim, but from Jim Renahan's book, what we may call our particular Baptist approach to church government as a species of congregationalism is plural elder-led associational congregationalism. If we could say what is the common expression, the common opinion of the particular Baptist as to our approach to church government, it would be plural elder-led associational congregationalism. Just a simple summary of that, each church composed of baptized believers Important distinction, each church composed of baptized believers is governed by a plurality of elders under Christ alone, yet walks in associational communion with other churches for mutual edification, counsel, and support. That would be our approach to church governance in just a simple defining sentence.
Some of the strengths that are connected to this approach to church government that come from our confession, again, it upholds the headship of Christ in each church. It maintains elder rule without undermining the congregation's authority. As we'll see in a quote from Jim Renahan here in a moment, the elders don't have an unmitigated rule over the congregation. They are for the church, for the good of the church, for the good of souls, and working as one of the members of that congregation, but in an appointed office for the good and the well-being of the church.
This approach encourages meaningful inter-church fellowship without tyranny, maybe that's a strong word, but without an unbiblical imposition or extrinsic authority over one or more churches. It grounds its structure in, among other places, Matthew 18, Acts 6, Acts 14, 15, and 20, 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1, and we'll have a look at a couple of those passages here in a moment. If we could sort of wrap up the confessional route of this approach to church government It comes from paragraphs seven and paragraphs 15 to summarize it. To each of these churches thus gathered, he hath given all that power and authority which is in any way needful.
And then in paragraph 15, in cases of difficulties or differences, it is according to the mind of Christ that many churches holding communion together do by their messengers meet to consider.
Biblical Foundations for Congregational Polity
So let's just go to our Bibles for a moment just to look at some passages that inform this particular approach to church government. First of all, we can go to 1 Corinthians 5. 1 Corinthians chapter 5.
Church Discipline and Local Authority
Notice in 1 Corinthians 5, first at verse 1, and then we'll move forward a little bit, but notice in verse 1 of 1 Corinthians 5, it is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles, that a man has his father's wife, and you are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, notice, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." And then down in verses 12 and 13, for what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
But those who are outside, God judges, therefore put away from yourselves the evil person. we're doing this, we're sort of putting our minds to work here. Remember that Paul is writing this to the church, which is at Corinth, and notice he's speaking, he's appealing to them as the local church, when you are gathered together along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is, you know, to expand on that, we may just write paragraphs four and paragraph seven of the Confession of Faith. The Corinthian Church is to, amongst themselves and by themselves, deal with the matter in the way here that the Word of God prescribes.
They don't appeal to anyone extrinsic to themselves. Obviously, there's an appeal here to the Apostle Paul. The Apostle Paul, again, as an apostle, a unique office, in the Church of Christ is giving them instructions, but he's addressing them, he's not appealing to anyone except for them as the local church.
Elders Appointed in Every Church
You can turn with me to Acts 14. Acts 14, this is just a simple example of, you know, sort of church independency, but associational independency. In Acts 14, notice at verse, let's see here, let's pick up at verse 21. And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith and saying, we must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.
So when they had appointed elders in every church and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." It's a wonderful, simple text, but notice just the simplicity of the church model here. Elders in all of the churches, so elders in every city, and then commending them to the Lord. It's again an encapsulated, this time in reverse, paragraph 7 to paragraph 4. It's the local church, imbued with, invested with authority by the Lord Jesus Christ, who are commended to that Lord as their head.
We could note as well Titus 1, 5 to 9, 1 Timothy 3, 1 to 13, which is, you know, a parallel with regards to A, the appointing of elders in every city, and then B, what that church governance looks like in the way of the men so called. Now, with regards to, actually,
Associationalism and Inter-Church Communion
let's turn to Romans for a moment as well. just to see something here connected to associationalism amongst the churches in the Book of Romans. And at the end of Romans, Romans 15, near the end, Notice Romans 15, let's see here, we'll read it beginning at verse 25. But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints, for it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem. It pleased them indeed, and they are the debtors, for if the Gentiles have the makers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things.
So moving from sort of this independent approach to church government, where it's the local churches invested with authority by Christ, who are under Christ, the head thereof, we now have that those independent churches are not to be so isolated, but rather to be found in communion with other churches, in this instance, providing for those who are in need. One of the blessed advantages, benefits, boons, in associational congregationalism is the ability for churches to provide for other churches. That's biblical, that's Christ-honoring, that's doing the work that the apostles love to write about, is helping other churches, not only praying with them and holding a loose fellowship, but actually providing materially, sort of, you know, following prayer with the wallet, if you will, in providing those good material things that churches need for functioning in this lower veil of tears. So we could also make a note of 2 Corinthians 8, 2 Corinthians 8 as well, where we have there the churches being commended for their liberal giving.
You can make a note as well, as we're drawing to an end, that just with regards to independent church government, the autobiographical reflections of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 2 and his dealings with the Apostle Peter, Paul didn't appeal, first of all, he wasn't called by Jerusalem to go to Jerusalem. He went there, and whilst there, or whilst dealing with the Apostle Peter, he doesn't appeal to Jerusalem as some sort of church presbytery or any sort of church synod or anything like that, but rather deals with him face to face as one representing the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ, not appealing to any extrinsic church body above himself. Also a revelation, chapters two and three, where Christ does not address a synod or some collective of churches, but rather directly addresses each church, each church receiving its own letter, its own rebuke, its own commendation, its own call to repentance. And we could say that this model alone, not alone in that the others don't, but alone in its particular form, alone exalts Christ as soul head, honors the integrity of the local assembly, preserves the parity of elders, and strengthens unity without coercion.
And so those are in a very brief scanning of the data and the history and the approaches to church government. Those are exactly those, the approaches to church government with the biblical one as expressed in the Second London being plural elder-led associational congregationalism.
Questions and Answers
Any questions about the doctrine of the church? Yes, Leslie. Yep. We could use the word synod if it's a good word.
Synod, more widening than associational. Yeah, doctrinally, but not practically. I mean, the word itself is good, just like, you know, the word Eucharist is good, but it has connotations. There are words that are good and that we could apply.
I mean, you know, even the word a presbytery, you know, a gathering of elders from other churches. I mean, we convened a presbytery in a particular sense of the term when we questioned Dan not too long ago. in April. But as far as the technical, doctrinal, church governance use of the word, yeah, that's different. Any other questions?
I give back to you eight minutes. Enjoy church worship.