Steve Stanley > Recent Status Updates

The use of the *diakonia* terminology points to the conclusion that the deacon serves not the bishop or elders, but the saints.

Church government is organized for service, not dominion. Church office serves both the Lord and his people. . . . Service, not power or prestige, is the purpose of church officers, as of all believers. . . . Church government is the rule of Christ’s kingdom of grace and sacrificial love.

Corrective church discipline should seek restoration of the offender in a spirit of gentleness [Matt 18:15; Gal 6:1-2; Jas 5:19-20]....We must remember that the desire to punish or inflict vengeance has no place in church discipline, no matter how great the wrongdoing [Rom 12:19].

Equally important to the steps of [corrective church] discipline is the attitude and goal of discipline. Previous generations’ abuse of church discipline led some to abandon the practice altogether.

Church discipline breaks down into two categories—formative and corrective. Formative discipline means forming spiritually mature believers through teaching and training...Every church engages in formative discipline to one degree or another [Matt 28:20]...A steady practice of formative discipline will produce healthier followers of Christ.

The absence of church discipline demonstrates a lack of biblical love in churches.

Some situations warrant departure. Teaching and preaching that obscure or miss the gospel render a church less than a church and are strong warrants for leaving. Moral failures among leaders that render them unfit to lead and yet go unaddressed are also grounds for departure. An overall toxic spiritual atmosphere can develop in a church that makes it dangerous to one's spiritual health or the health of one's family.

Congregationalism locates authority in the church as a whole as it follows the directives of its Lord in the Scriptures. Elders and deacons provide leadership and guidance in the church’s work. Where the church and its leaders are at odds with each other, one or both are wrong . . . they need to go back to the Scriptures and sort out their differences.

We must do justice to all the biblical data, which better fits with a congregational-rule and elder-led structure.

Unfortunately, what often occurs in discussions of church government is that one side of the biblical evidence is elevated over against other biblical evidence. Either the rule of the congregation is elevated at the expense of the leadership, or the authority of the leadership is elevated without acknowledging the final authority of the congregation. Such reductionism must be rejected.

Put together, then, the NT presents a picture of congregational *rule* that is *elder led*. The elders lead and guide the church to fulfill and carry out its responsibilities as the church.

[Most] New Testament letters were written to churches as a whole and not merely to church leaders.

Determining the suitability of elders based on these qualifications [1 Tim 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9] will require the assessment of members. Paul also said that deacons “must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons” (1 Tim 3:10 NIV). As with assessing elders, such testing requires input from the congregation, not merely the leadership team.

There is a sense in which elders make commands. But since they do not have the power of excommunication at their exclusive disposal, they cannot enforce their commands without the congregation’s assent. This protects them from abusing their authority because they are forced instead to rely on persuading church members according to the Word. (70-71)

This chapter defends the former [elder led], not the latter model [elder rule], while numerous churches today adopt the latter. The leaders of these churches may be well intentioned, but this form of governance is highly problematic. In worst-case scenarios leaders treat questions as a sign of disloyalty. When healthy discussion is ended, churches will soon become highly dysfunctional. (48n4)

In today’s discussion often a distinction is made between *elder led* within a congregational rule and *elder rule* without congregational involvement. (48n4)

Whether we admit it or not, churches are often influenced by the leadership and organizational models in the surrounding culture... But the main goal must always be biblical faithfulness. As in all areas of the Christian life, faithfulness to the Bible in leadership and church structure is essential for the long-term health and usefulness of local congregations.

[Ultimately] Scripture should drive our view of church governance, as [the] early proponents of congregationalism made clear.

[According to Oliver Cromwell, the] Christian is called to love all in whom Christ dwells regardless of their denominational affiliation.

[Browne argued that the] pastors and elders of the church ultimately received their authority and office from God, but they were to be appointed to their office by ‘due consent and agreement of the church . . . according to the number of the most which agree.’

[Robert] Browne conceived of the local church as a ‘gathered’ church, a company of Christians who had covenanted together to live under the rule of Christ, the risen Lord, who made his will known through his Word and Spirit.

[Jean Morély] defined the local church as that ‘union of truly blessed souls chosen in Jesus Christ from eternity for eternal life, who assemble for the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, who are a part and image of the universal church.’

Christians must persevere in holiness if they are to be finally saved. Salvation is by faith, not by pursuing holiness. But true saving faith ‘works’; it produces good works [Gal 5:6]. . . . Salvation is not based on works, but true salvation results in good works [Eph 2:8-10].