What scriptures prove churches should be independent?

In an earlier post, you compared this type of hierarchy to a situation in a local church: "...if a congregation feels its Pastor has broken with the clear teachings of the Word of God they should get rid of him." Those comparisons are not parallel. In the parallel comparison of the local church to a top-down hierarchy, the church CANNOT get rid of the pastor, and instead of getting rid of him, they must leave. It seems that the same logic that would allow a church to submit to a hierarchy outside the church would also allow for a church to submit to pastoral dictatorship. Though certainly in any case members of a congregation can leave if they don't like what's going on, I believe a scriptural system will allow them to have a greater voice than to just leave if they don't like it.

I also think that many IFB's are "too independent." Not in what is truly good and right in church autonomy, but in an exaggerated form that often sees themselves as the only thing that God has going on! Though "governmentally" each church is independent, it is apparent from Scripture that there was also an interdependency of the New Testament churches. There is much interaction of the churches over a wide range of geography in days of slower travel and communication. Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians several times brought the reminder of how it was "every where in every church." Sounds like they wanted to be "too independent."

 

Elders; Bishops; Pastors = these are 3 names for the man who is the pastor of a local church.
In a nut shell, one refers to a man, the other to his position etc. A Bishop is an overseer etc. You all can look up the words and most likely have.

The one problem is this: Methodists have Bishops and admit it and Baptist have Bishops and won't admit it.

I am Ind Bapt. I have alo preached in many SBC churches and some Missionary Baptist Churches for a service or for meetings.

I believe it is up to that particular local church to decide who to associtate/participate with.

As Bible believing Baptist - we must or should - admit... that there are many different/varrying philosophies of ministry.
If not, we would all be vanilla .....

There have been cases where a denomination has lorded over a Baptist church for various reasons. They can be debated and agreed with or disagreed with.

In the same fashion ... in IFB circles ... there are cases where churches/pastors have lorded over a Baptist Church or a pastor.

I do dislike the politics in religion but it does exist and so ... I become more Independant.

Now ... as IFB Churches ... we do participate with any Baptist Church etc. that we choose.

For example: Our church hosts a Soul Winning Conference in March. It is open to any Baptist who loves the Lord and is interested in winning souls. We don't push/preach any group or movement nor attack any either.

SBC churches have associations while IFB churches have Fellowships. Basically ... a matter of semantics.

I do have a Q? for the SBC pastors on this page ...
Why do many/some SBC pastors look at IFB pastors as weird/odd because we do not support the Cooperative program??? I have preached for several SBC churches in the past and somewhere in the fellowship with the pastor he ask me why I do not.... I explain: Because I am not SBC and we simply channel our $$$ through different organizations ... missions - Bible Colleges etc.

They still look at me with a funny look like I've missed the boat.

So .. what's the diff?

 

I feel that the cooperative program is like many things that began good but now has developed some flaws. I am sure that many good things are still being done thru this effort but I have told my church that I feel southern baptists in many cases have allowed their blind support of the cooperative program to take them personally out of the missions picture. I am not discounting any one who has given and feels that this is their best way to do missions but we must hold our sbs and stae conventions to a higher standard of accountability. the coop program is fine but we must keep our eyes open and properly evaluate where God's money is going.
Murph

 

As I said in the 4th post on this page, probably everyone will agree that there is no explicit command for a particular type of church government, nor is there any New Testament writing specifying exact forms of church polity. I am not and have not asserted that the Jesus Christ or His apostles ever COMMANDED any kind of church government. If we are looking for a command for some type of church government, we will not find it.

No, if we go only by commands, it will lean more towards the fact that God doesn't care about church government, since there is no such command.

In distinguishing between a "command" (above) and an "example" (below), you err. BOTH Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23 are examples of apostolic practice. Titus 1:5 gives nothing about a command for any person other than Titus. In other words, you and I are not commanded to do anything by Titus 1:5. Now if you assert that this EXAMPLE of Paul COMMANDING Titus to appoint elders then specifies something about church government, you have accepted the position that you claim to deny - that New Testament or apostolic practice is normative.

Yes. Again this is an EXAMPLE of apostolic practice, and it is consistent with the example of apostolic practice in Titus 1:5.

No, I am saying that if New Testament practice does not inform us about church government, then the New Testament does not inform us about church government, because there are ONLY examples. There is no command to set up ANY kind of church government, and if we require that there must be a command, then the only thing left is to believe that God doesn't care what kind of church government a church has and that the form is left to preference or expediency. Yes, I believe that autonomous congregations are scriptural, but I am not saying that if I am not right then God failed to have the Apostles give us that information. I am saying that whatever we need to inform us on faith and practice is found in the New Testament. I may be wrong in my understanding of church government, but I nevertheless believe that the New Testament is where I must go to find out about it.

And the fact that the New Testament only gives qualifications for TWO offices, bishops and deacons, is quite telling against any system that creates more. What are the qualifications of a cardinal? an archbishop? a pope? BTW, I am not JUST arguing the absence of express commands.

I am NOT advocating something for which there is no example. There is not an absence in the New Testament of good principles and examples for church government. Systems such as episcopal & presbyterian take that for which there is no example and assail it against that for which we have abundant examples. But that alone is not the argument.

Nor, as we have already agreed, does inconsistency make it wrong.

This could be a part of apostolic practice that hasn't been sufficiently thought out by advocates of church autonomy, but I would add that it may be explained in several ways other than hierarchical church government, the simplest of which is that the Apostles possessed an authority peculiar to their office that does not exist in the churches today. Acts 14:23 & Titus 1:5 certainly are not examples of the more complex episcopal and presbyterian systems devised for church government.

The episcopal systems of Anglicans and Methodists involve much more than just appointing elders in local congregations. Some Baptists practice a form of "government" in which a body of elders or "presbyters" act autonomously (or at least semi-automonously), with some authority vested in them (not saying I agree, just that this is something people may not generally be acquainted with).

[ October 02, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

So in your understanding of this issue, just what weight does the EXAMPLE of Paul COMMANDING Timothy to appoint elders have? If you dismiss New Testament practice as binding in any way, why does it matter?

In the sense that you have created a "the Bible must command us not to or we can" approach, I guess you could somehow view me as arguing from silence. But I am arguing that the Bible is our all sufficient rule for doctrine, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete. You are arguing that the Bible doesn't provide this sufficient rule, and in certain areas we should resort to preference and expediency. For example, on the bishops and deacons issue, I accept that what offices the Bible gives qualifications for, we will have (no silence there). You must, from what is not said, assume that the offices that are not mentioned ought to be there also (argument from silence). You may reply they don't "have" to be there, but for a hierarchy to exist, they do "have" to be there.

Though you have rejected my method of interpretation - New Testament practice as normative - you have given us no reason why we should accept your method of interpretation.

Plainly, from the beginning, I have never suggested, implied, nor declared that there is such a command. Nor do I believe there has to be.

It seems you are arguing a kind of "if the Bible doesn't command us to not anoint a candidate with chocolate syrup before baptism, then we can't say its unbiblical" approach.

On what basis do you say they are wrong if they say we must submit? Is there a command that we must not submit? And are there any hierarchies in existence in which one can refuse to submit and still be a part? Could such even be a possibility? Isn't that the very nature of hierarchy? It won't work if those in the chain of command don't submit.

Though you may have missed it because I posted three consecutive posts, in my first post on this page, I noted several examples and principles. I will deal with some of them in more detail below.

Nor have I tried. There was no hierarchy for them to resist.

Nor have I tried to do this, either. I have clearly stated from the beginning that my position on church government is based on New Testament practice (examples). There are NO explicit commands to the church be BE independent to NOT BE independent.

You might argue a hierarchy from the 'appointment of elders,' but you might be arguing incorrectly. First, though you might make something of it against complete autonomy, I don't think you ahould argue for a hierarchy from it, because that doesn't fit the true nature and meaning of hierarchy. Dictionary definitions of hierarchy are: a ruling body of clergy organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it; the organization of people at different ranks in an administrative body; church government by a hierarchy; religious rule by a group of ranked clergy; a body of persons in authority; a series of ordered groupings of people or things within a system [from Gk. hierarkhia, rule of a high priest]. Second, since you don't accept apostolic example as authoritative on church government, I'm not sure why you would argue based on an apostolic example anyway.

Again, there are NO explicit commands to the church be BE independent to NOT BE independent. So, I'm not looking for those verses, nor saying that.

I am sure that you are probably not willing that everything that is right or wrong be based ONLY on the presence of an express command. Where is the express command to not snort cocaine? Where is the express command to not sprinkle or pour for baptism? Where is the express command to not baptize in olive oil? Where is the express command to not use Jose Cuervo and tacos for communion?

As I said before, "Those who accept New Testament practice as normative will find proof in guiding principles and the consistent New Testament application of those principles through apostolic practice. To give those scriptures to someone who rejects that concept is somewhat of an exercise in futility." Nevertheless, I need the exercise.

I'm not sure about your wording "examples of the church being called to be indepedent." But I will give what I believe to be certain examples and New Testament teachings that are consistent with local church autonomy and are contrary to hierarchical church government.
</font>

• "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus teaches concerning resolving a trespass or fault between brethren, and establishes the church as the final place of appeal.</font>
• "But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:" In Mark 10:42-45, Jesus specifically rejects the Gentile type of hierarchy or rule by domination or lording over, and says to the disciples, it must not be like that among them.</font>
• "And they appointed two, etc." Acts 1:15-26 shows the entire church engaged in decision making.</font>
• "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose..." Acts 6:5 shows the entire church body choosing the seven men.</font>
• "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Acts 13:1-3 shows the church at Antioch, sending away Barnabas and Saul to the work God had called them to do without inquiring from higher authority what to do.</font>
• "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:" Although counseling with others, the church at Jerusalem sends a letter addressing a problem caused by "certain which went out from" them.</font>
• "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Romans 14:1 indicates receiving a person is a church matter.</font>
• "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple." Acts 9:26 shows receiving a person as a church matter.</font>
• "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." I Cor. 5 shows correcting a member as a church matter.</font>
• "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Gal. 6:1 shows restoration as a church matter.</font>
• "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Jesus is the head of the church, and the church should be subject to Him, not some other head.</font>
• "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." In I Peter 2:5,9, and others, believers are priests (cf. Rev. 1:6; 5:10, et.al), capable of offering up acceptable sacrifices to God without hierarchies of mediators. Jesus is our High Priest.</font>
• "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church." "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches." In several places Paul speaks of consistent practices throughout all the churches, indicating his teachings and practices were intended to be universal. (I Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 14:33; II Cor. 8:18; 11:28; Acts 14:23).</font>

 

I think that there are precedents for all three ecclesiologies in Scripture (episcopal/ hierachic, presbyterian/ conciliar and congregational). In the Corinthian church, for example, there seems to have been quite a bit of a congregational free-for-all, with no-one in particular in charge; although there are various ministries mentioned in I Cor 12:28, none seems to take precedents, and there is no mention of presbyter-elders or bishops. In Acts, there are various refs to 'elders', which suggests a form of conciliar leadership, and then in the Pastorals (I&2 Tim & Titus), we see the development of a more hierarchical system of bishop-overseers (over a number of churches) to preserve sound teaching in the face of persecution and heresy. The question is less "what kind of churches and church government existed in the NT?"; rather, it is, "what kind were appropriate then for what reasons and, based on this, what sort should we have today in our own situations and circumstances?"

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Congatulations on the new baby, and best wishes for a new job.

Even though you're planning on posting further, I'll go ahead and makes a few comments for now. First, speaking for myself, the governments of the Presbyterian and Methodist churches are relatively minor matters to me, considering they are both infant baptizers, and the Methodists hold apostasy in addition to that. I am definitely opposed to hierarchy, but I don't have a major problem with a fundamentally sound church that has some governmental differences that I don't agree with. If we're realistic, we know even "congregationally-governed" churches are not always really governed by the congregation. They might be ruled by a matriarch who was a charter member, a single pastor who is a dictator, a deacon who has taken over, the richest person in the church, or a family that has "always been there." Would you agree that any of these systems are acceptable?

Concerning the scriptures that you mention - I Corinthians 4:6 & Romans 14:5 - I think there are a few problems in using them to justify your position. First, Paul's injunction to "not go beyond what is written" is exactly what hierarchical systems do - they go beyond what is written. These systems do not simply "appoint leaders of the churches based on Paul's admonition to appoint elders" - they create unscriptural offices. What is written is bishops and deacons; what goes beyond what is written is such things as cardinals, wardens, abbots, prelates, archbishops, right reverends, his eminences, popes, etc. Second, the injunction to let every man "be fully convinced in his own mind" is not an universal injunction that we can apply to whatever we like. It is in regard to matters in which Christians have liberty to take or leave, to do or not do (such as eating meats offered to idols, cf. I Cor. 8). So to apply this scripture to the act of churches creating new offices that go beyond what is written, rather than accepting the offices laid out in the New Testament, leaves you in the position of proving that creating such offices is a matter of liberty and does not go beyond what is written.

This issue is not a matter of "one size fits all." IMO, numerous variations can exist among sound churches that would all still be within the realm of New Testament practice. But there is not room for variations that violate New Testament command, principle and practice. For example, the creation of a church hierarchy with graduated tiers of authority would violate Matthew 18:15-17. Jesus commands a method of resolving disputes between brethren, and establishes the church as the final place of appeal and decision. Yet in hierarchical systems the appeal goes up the ladder until it stops with the pope or the synod or the whatever is their highest level of authority. Or, for example, Peter teaches that elders are not to lord it over God's heritage (I Pet. 5:1-3). Then what right do we have to build a system that does just that?

Finally, a few comments in regard to your statement concerning hierarchy that "They don't 'have' to be there for a hiarchy, because if our church does'nt participate we don't need it." I do understand that you believe they don't have to be there, but for a hierarchy to function they must be there. And yes, you are free to not be in a hierarchy, but the fact is that churches in hierarchical systems are NOT free. If they want to make their own decisions, they must get out of the hierarchy. That is the whole point of a hierarchical system - graduated levels of authority with the decision making at the top.

 

Eph 5:23-24
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Ibf, Please tell me where in the scriptures that God says that your marriage to your wife has any type of hierarchy? Is your marriage autonomous? Who is the only Head of your household? Would it be right or biblical for you to submit the authority that God gives to you to another?

Would the Lord Christ demand exclusive authority over a church? I know I want exclusive authority in my marriage.

Denominational authority over a church is not scriptural.
Thanks ----Bart “The dueling society was a polite society”.

 

Though the following link is not to a thread directly discussing being "independent", it does mention it, and specifically addresses the underlying concept of apostolic practice as normative. Someone might like to consider it.

Baptists, Why Do You Do It?