The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

JohnV · #18 (**permalink**) 06-23-2004, 03:07 PM

[quote:59858d3cfb][i:59858d3cfb]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:59858d3cfb]
John,
Is the Anglican church structure similar to the catholic structure, in that they govern from the "top down". I've heard it said that the Presbyterian church is different in that it governs from the "bottom up". Is that correct? If so, how so? (as an outsider looking in, its difficult to differentiate)

That sounds like an interesting book you're reading. I know you're a Presbyterian, but in your unbiased opinion, are the arguments he makes from the scriptures pretty convincing? Even if you were a baptist, do you think you'd have to agree with most of his points?

If I'm not mistaken, you've read a bunch of the writings of the early church. Do they talk much about the structure of the early church?

Bob[/quote:59858d3cfb]

Bob:

In a way that is a trick question. "In my unbiased opinion" I am a Presbyterian. I don't believe I came to this position upon biases. So yes, I am convinced by what I have read. But, I know what you're asking, and I am also sensitive to your question, of course.

I think that Witherow, as far as I have read so far, is quite compelling. One of the things that I questioned at first was his contention that Paul ordained elders in the churches he established, but that they were chosen by "popular suffrage", that is, by nomination and vote by the members. But Acts ch. 1 bears that out, in the choosing of the replacement for Judas. I'm not a language scholar, but the references I have would also tend toward that assumption. The actual reference is to Acts 14:23, the appointing of elders in every church on the first missionary journey.

Another thing that struck me is that Paul is quite strong, especially in Galations where he opposes Peter in front of the people, when it concerns the rituals of the old covenant being imposed into the new. Yet for all that, he did not impose himself into the role of sole authority in a church where he did not have that office. Yes, he was an apostle, but he was not to dictate or lord it over anyone. The dispute in Antioch was taken to Jerusalem for resolution, and that before the elders and the people. And even in Jerusalem the Apostles did not dictate to the elders and the people what was to be done, but gave their input as witnesses of the workings of the Spirit and of the Scriptures.

Taken in the context, these are rather strong arguments. They cannot just be minimized, as if they could be taken to balance off some tradition. These accounts are included for very good reason. For the sake of the issue itself we have Romans and Galations, much more than enough to resolve and questions we may have about circumcision or the law. But the process, the administration, and the deliberaton were especially recorded for us so that we would not be without precedent in our own proceedures.

Now, about other writings. I have mostly merely assumed the soundness of the presbyterial system until recently. You can imagine that interaction such we have on the Board is not common in our little circles at church. A glib answer is often sufficient, regretably. But lately, with discussions on this Board, and with ground-shaking occurrances in my home church, this has been of great interest to me. Calvin goes into some detail in Book Four of his Institutes, I found. Matt has some very good reading in his pastoring section on [u:59858d3cfb]A Puritan's Mind[/u:59858d3cfb] as well, where he records for us some Puritan writers' views on the ministry of the Word. But in these you have to assume the Presbyterian milieu to catch the import it has on the centrality of the Word and on the whole system. And that may be difficult to someone not given to it beforehand.

My recent readings have not gone much beyond that, other than [u:59858d3cfb]The Marrow of Modern Divinity[/u:59858d3cfb], which was recommended to me by Fred Greco; I am reading that at the moment as well.

I would say that, biases aside, the thing to do is to get as broad a picture of the original structure as you can, keeping to Scripture, and to narrow in from there. That way you're not just left with this opinion against that opinion, but have some substantial basis for believing in the suffieciency of Scripture even for the magistracy in the church.

And yes, the Anglican Church's structure is basically the same as the Catholic one. The Church of England, remember, did not object to the misuse of office and of the administration of the Word like the Reformers did; they objected to the authority the church had even over the personal affairs of the king, even though it was a public office. For them it was more a matter of putting their own men into ecclesiastical position rather than one of reforming the church.

Right now my interest lies in what a minister is commissioned to preach, the extent of his licence, and who it is that sets the parameters of what that "gospel of Christ" is; whether or not it includes propounding ideas he may legitemately hold, but which are not ruled by the church as a whole to be "the gospel". There is a great amount of difference between "not being at variance with the confessions" in your views, and making your opinions equal to the Scripture on the pulpit. But this too leans quite heavily on the Presbyterian system.

I'd like to see where this thread goes. I hope I didn't sway it off course for you, Bob.