|
Church Unity
A Discussion Paper
Submitted to the Consistory of Llandaff Presbyterian
Church (Reformed)
10 September 2000
_______
The church of Christ at
Llandaff, together with Bethel, has been invited to seek
unity with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of
England and Wales.
The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated),
with whom we have sister-church relations, have
encouraged us for a number of years to pursue this
course of action. We thank God for all these brethren in
Christ. This paper considers the biblical principles
which should guide us in this matter.
The
Church
The church is the Covenant
people. From the time of the first promise (Gen 3:15),
God has had His people in the world (Gen 4:4,26; Heb
11:4ff). In Abraham’s time, God established His covenant
with Abraham and his seed in perpetuity (Gen 17:1-7).
The covenant people was Israel under the old covenant
(Ex 6:2-7; Acts 7:38) and the church, embracing Jews and
Gentiles, under the new (Gal 3:26-29; Eph 2:11-18). Thus
the church is the covenant people in all ages and among
all nations. It has received the promises of God,
principally, “I will be your God and you shall be my
people” (Lev 26:12), the call to obedience (Gen 17:1)
and the sign of the covenant, baptism (Matt 28:18-20),
formerly circumcision (Gen 17).
The church is the Body of
Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the
Seed of promise, the Mediator of the covenant, and the
head of the church (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; Eph 5:23). The
church is the body of Christ (Eph 4:15,16; Col 1:18);
its members are baptised into Christ (Ro 6:3).
The church is local and
catholic. The NT speaks of many local churches and also
about the one church of Christ. The Greek term
ekklesia usually translated “church,” refers to an
assembly or congregation, a gathered body of people,
and thus it is natural to think first in terms of the
local church met together in one place (Acts 13:1;
14:23; 15:41; 16:4,5; Ro 16:4,5; 1 Cor 11:16,17,20;
16:1,19).
The churches are spoken of in the plural, referring to
the many congregations spread throughout the world. Each
local church is fully a church with its own identity and
mission. The word also has an inclusive use, referring
to the church as one (Matt 16:18; Eph 5:23-25). This one
church of Christ is described as “catholic” and
“ecumenical.” The term “catholic” is derived from the
Greek kath’ holon, which means “in respect of the
whole.” The term “ecumenical” comes from the Greek
oikoumene which means “pertaining to the inhabited
world.”
Thus the local churches throughout the world are
nevertheless one church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Church Unity
Since there is one
covenant, there must be one covenant people, one church.
Since there is one Lord Jesus Christ, there must be one
body of Christ, one church. The essential nature of the
church entails its unity. The ultimate ground of this
unity is to be found in God Himself (Jn 17:20-23; Eph
4:4-6; 1 Tim 2:5). God is one (Deu 6:4,5). The church is
one. Viewed objectively, this unity is an accomplished
fact (Eph 2:14,15). Viewed existentially, it is a goal
to which the church must aspire and for which it must
labour (Eph 4:13). The church, therefore, is not one
because it has consented to unite; rather, its unity has
been ordained and commanded by God.
The Scriptures make it
plain that unity must characterise the church local and
the church catholic. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that
the church is the body of Christ and there must be no
schism, no tearing of the church into pieces (1 Cor
12:12-14,24-27). Paul was addressing the local church
and yet he refers to the church as a whole in the same
context (12:28). The unity of the body is a principle
which must apply at both levels.
It is impossible to evade
the force of Christ’s prayer recorded in John 17. On the
eve of the crucifixion, He prayed for the church, for
which He was laying down His life, that it might know
perfect unity. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians repeatedly
refers to this same unity. God’s grand purpose is to
bring all things together under the headship of Christ
(Eph 1:10); He has united Jews and Gentiles in one body
(Eph 2:14,15); profound love must pervade that body (Eph
3:14-21); the church is called to strive for unity (Eph
4:1-6); and its gifts are to serve that purpose (Eph
4:11-16).
In certain places,
Scripture underlines our responsibility for solidarity
as the God’s covenant people. When Israel was about to
enter the land of promise, two tribes wanted their
inheritance to be on the east side of Jordan. Moses’
reaction is instructive: “Shall your brethren go to war
while you sit here? Now why will you discourage the
heart of the children of Israel from going over into the
land which the
Lord has given them?” (Nu 32:6,7). Every part of
the covenant people, every tribe, must be engaged in the
covenant enterprise. Refusal was rebellion against the
Lord. “But if you do not do so, then take note, you have
sinned against the
Lord; and
be sure your sin will find you out” (Nu 32:23). The
apostle Paul calls on the churches of the Gentiles to
rally to the support of their needy brethren in Judea (1
Cor 16:1-3). The local churches had a clear duty towards
one another. Thus we observe in the NT the normal
practice of brother greeting brother, church greeting
church, the greeting of a holy kiss, and the extending
of the right hand of fellowship, things which ought not
to be extended towards the enemies of Christ and the
truth (Ro 16:3,5,6,8,11; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; Phil
4:21; Col 4:14; 1 Thess 5:26; 2 Tim 4:21; Titus 3:15;
Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 5:14; 2 Jn 1:10,13; 3 Jn 1:14; Gal 2:9).
It is our duty to greet one another, and for church to
greet church. It is sinful disobedience to disregard
this apostolic instruction to the churches.
Conclusion 1: As a local church of our Lord Jesus
Christ, we are thus called to believe, confess, and obey
the will of God for the unity of the Church.
The nature of church unity
Our Lord prayed for the
unity of the church at the highest level (Jn 17:21). The
metaphors which Scripture uses of the church teach its
organic unity: it is the body of Christ (Ro 12:4,5; Eph
4:15,16); it is a vine (Jn 15:1-6). This living, organic
unity is created by the Holy Spirit who indwells the
members of Christ’s body, uniting them to Him and to one
another (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3,4). Since the Holy Spirit
is the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17,26; 15:7,26; 16:13), it
follows that the unity of the church must be in the
truth (Jn 17:17,20-22). This is underlined by the fact
that Christ declared that He was the truth (Jn 14:6;
1:14) and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ who
takes of the things of Christ and applies them to the
church (Jn 16:13,14).
Christ promised His
disciples that the Holy Spirit would bring to their
remembrance what He had said to them (Jn 14:26). By this
means, the NT became the final deposit of the truth, the
apostles’ doctrine. This is the truth by which the
church’s unity is established (Acts 2:42; Eph 2:20; 1
Tim 1:3,4; 6:20,21; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:16-21). The
church’s unity must be unity in the truth of Scripture.
How should church unity be
promoted? The primary means of promoting the unity of
the church, local and catholic, is the sound preaching
of the whole counsel of God. That is God’s appointed
means of creating faith. If every member and every local
church is growing in the knowledge of God’s Word,
faithfully expounded, then thereby the church will be
growing in unity.
Duties arising from the
nature of church unity
The duty of discernment.
There is de facto no unity without concord in the
faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
That is the unity created by the Holy Spirit. Apart from
it, there is no unity. Light can have no fellowship with
darkness (2 Cor 6:14). Every spirit therefore must be
tested (1 Jn 4:1-3). Every teacher must be tested
whether he abides by the Word of God. Every church’s
confession must be examined to see whether it is sound.
We have a duty to exercise discernment (Rev 2:2).
The duty of separation. If
any person or a body of people rejects the truth, the
church comes under a duty to separate from that person
or body. Christ commanded His apostles, if their
preaching of the gospel was met with rejection, to shake
the dust off their feet, a symbol of complete withdrawal
(Matt 10:14,15; Acts 13:44-52; 19:8-10; cf., Gal 1:6-9).
If a person within the church turns aside from the
apostles’ doctrine to his own opinions, and refuses to
yield to sound admonition in which the pastors of the
church clearly show his error, he must be rejected
(Titus 3:10; Ro 16:17,18 2 Jn 1:7-11; cf., Matt 18:15-17
for a similar disciplinary procedure).
The duty of reformation.
Not all disagreements constitute a complete rejection of
the truth requiring separation.
Differences have arisen over particular points of
doctrine. These ought to be settled by a council of
pastors, seeking to reach agreement on the basis of
Scripture, interpreted according to sound hermeneutical
principles, and formulating their conclusions for the
sake of the whole church (Acts 15).
When a position is established from Scripture, the whole
church has a duty to reform accordingly.
The church today is
fragmented into many denominations with various
differences in doctrine. The situation is complex.
Some of these differences are so radical that they
constitute an insuperable obstacle to fellowship (e.g.,
denial of the inspiration of Scripture; denial of the
Trinity); other differences respect a single doctrine
but are entrenched and severely restrict fellowship
(rejection of infant baptism; the Pentecostal and
charismatic understanding of the work of the Holy
Spirit, Arminianism, denial of the doctrine of hell).
The reformed churches rightly approach this matter by
reference to the confession of faith, fraternal
relations being possible among churches which hold to a
sound reformed confession (principally, the Westminster
Confession of Faith, 1647, or the Three Forms of Unity).
The sheer complexity of the church is daunting; but it
does not justify abandoning the prayer for, and the
active pursuit of, sound biblical unity among the
churches.
Conclusion 2: the unity of the church of Christ must be
grounded upon unity in the truth of Scripture, the
foundation of the apostles and prophets.
The Government of the
Church
The question arises
whether the unity of the church should find expression
in its organisation and government. This question breaks
down into two parts. First, how is the NT church to be
governed? Second, should there be unity in government at
the ecumenical level?
The starting point must
always be with the headship of Christ (Eph 5:23; Col
1:18). He alone is the church’s chief shepherd and
bishop (1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Heb 12:20). After His
ascension, our Lord exercises His lordship in two ways:
through the Spirit and the Word; and through the
instrumentality of men.
Christ sent the Spirit (Jn
14:16, 26; 16:13; Ro 1:4), who reminded the apostles of
His Word (Jn 14:26). Thus He has given the church a
permanent record of His will, depositing it in the NT
which completes the canon of Scripture (Matt 28:20).
He also governs His church
through the instrumentality of men, His ambassadors.
Chief among these were the apostles (1 Cor 12:28; Matt
10:2-5). He entrusted to them the keys of His kingdom,
not to Peter only but to them all (Matt 16:19; 19:28; Jn
20:20-23; Lk 22:30). They constitute the permanent
foundation of the entire church (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14).
Thus far, all the provisions for government are
ecumenical in their scope. No part of Christ’s church
does not come under His government through Spirit and
Word and apostles.
The apostles ordained
elders (always plural) in every church local. Sometimes
the NT speaks of “pastors and teachers” (and
evangelists), focusing on the gifts of preaching and
teaching (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:16). At other times, it
speaks of elders, also called bishops (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet
5:1ff; Titus 1:5,7; 2 Tim 2:2). The apostles and elders
governed together until the time when all the apostles
had died, when the church was left entirely in the care
of elders. The office of elder was then the only
permanent office of government in the church of Christ.
The development of an episcopal hierarchy is without
biblical warrant and represents a departure from the
apostolic pattern.
It is quite clear from
the NT that each local church was under the care and
oversight of its own elders (Acts 20:28). John Murray’s
comments should be noted:
“It is all-important to
take account of the fact that it is on the local level
that this must, first of all, be applied. It is in the
local assembly or congregation of God’s people that the
ordinances of Christ’s appointment for his church are
regularly administered. The importance of the local
congregation is therefore paramount and it is
in the local congregation that the presbyterian
principle must first be exemplified… In the New
Testament the presbuterion is simply the elders
gathered together for the discharge of those functions
of government devolving upon them and no prerogative
of presbytery is denied them when acting in that
capacity. The presbyterian principle begins at the
level of the particular flock or congregation and if for
good reasons, it does not extend further than one
congregation, we are not to deem it unpresbyterian. To
be concrete, to that local presbytery belongs all the
functions that Christ has accorded to presbytery.”
It is important to
register this statement. It is a very strong one,
protecting the full integrity of the local church and
its presbytery. Thus the government of the local church
is settled.
Conclusion 3: the local church is a church in the full
sense of the term. The local elders session is the
primary forum for church government.
Ecumenical government
The question remains,
whether Christ’s government through the instrumentality
of elders has an ecumenical dimension. We believe that
it does.
First, two principles here
converge: (1) church unity and (2) presbyterial
government under Christ. The whole tenor of the NT
emphasises the unity of the church: one God, one
Messiah, one Holy Spirit, one faith, one baptism, the
new commandment, Christian fellowship, mutual help (2
Cor 8:4). It would be very strange if the government of
the church did not conform to this overwhelming
principle of unity. Since the only permanent office
remaining is that of elder, it would also be unthinkable
that unity in government should be expressed in any way
other than through the elders of the churches. Since
Christ’s rule extends over the catholic church, and He
has chosen to be represented by elders, we should expect
the office of elder, whose function is primarily in the
local church, to have an ecumenical dimension. When we
reason like this, we must not forget that elders govern
as a body, not as individuals. This leads us to think in
terms of a more widely representative body of elders.
The term “presbytery” (Greek presbuterion) can
refer to any body of elders. On the one hand, it is used
of the elders of the church at Lystra who, with Paul,
ordained Timothy (1 Tim 4:14; cf., Acts 16:1-3; 2 Tim
1:6);
on the other hand, it is applied to the Sanhedrin, the
supreme court of the Jews (Lk 22:66; Acts 22:5).
“Sanhedrin” (Greek sunedrion) refers to the
“sitting together” of the Jewish leaders; it is also
called a “senate” (Greek gerousia, Acts 5:21).
Second, there is the
council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). We must approach this
text bearing in mind three points. (1) Acts 15 is not
about church councils; it is about the reception of
Gentiles into the church. Luke was not trying to answer
our questions about ecumenical government. (2) Although
sometimes called an ecumenical council, this meeting of
the apostles and elders at Jerusalem was rather in the
nature of a local presbytery, which received delegates
from one other church, Antioch (15:2,6). At the time,
the church was found in many places, Phoenecia and
Samaria (15:3), Syria and Cilicia (15:41), but they were
not represented by their own delegates.
This does not imply that the church of Jerusalem was
over the other churches. Any primacy that it may have
enjoyed due to the presence of the apostles was never
intended to be permanent (Jn 4:23,24).
(3) There were certain features which cannot be
repeated: the apostles were present; the NT had not been
written; the church was in a transition period. Despite
these qualifications, there are some positive lessons to
be drawn from Acts 15.
1.
The council of Jerusalem is an example of a
presbyterial government having wider scope than the
local church. In fact, all the churches were involved.
The churches of Samaria and Phoenecia were aware of the
issue for which the council was summoned and were deeply
involved in it (15:4). The decrees were addressed to the
brethren in all the churches (15:23) and were delivered
to them by delegates who accompanied their mission with
preaching (15:30-34; 16:4,5).
2.
The basis for the council’s decision was the Word
of God. The disputants at Antioch had not been persuaded
by the authority even of the apostle Paul (15:2,5). The
council was not settled by the apostles’ views. Peter
refers to the vision which he had received, which was
God’s Word to him, although not yet in Scripture (15:7;
10:28, 44-48). Finally, James turns to the OT
Scriptures, Amos 9:11,12, which confirmed and
authenticated both Peter’s vision and Paul and Barnabas’
experience of God’s work among the Gentiles (15:15-17).
These points are surely
normative: the churches should unite in presbyterial
government and settle their affairs by the Word of God
alone.
Finally, in this
connection, OT precedent cannot be ignored. God’s people
were governed by elders in OT and NT. This will not
allow us to think that the apostles invented a new
office. There must be substantial continuity, even
though there are points of difference arising from the
transition from the old to the new economy. There were
elders in every city (Deu 19:12 and Titus 1:5). Now, the
OT tells us repeatedly that the elders of Israel
assembled to settle matters of national importance. This
does not mean that all the elders met together; the OT
indicates that some elders met representatively. The
principle of representation is evident. Consider the
following references.
·
Nu 11:10-30.
The seventy were ordained (cf., Ex 18:13-27; 24:9-11).
Here we should also notice that the principle of
representation was respected. This is consistently so.
Twelve spies were chosen, one from each tribe (Nu 13:2);
each tribe was represented at the dedication of the
tabernacle (Nu 7:1-89).
·
Deu 31:9.
The elders of Israel received the law from Moses.
·
Jos 23:2;
24:1. Joshua assembled the elders of Israel to charge
them before he died.
·
1 Sam 8:4.
The elders of Israel came to Samuel to ask for a king.
·
2 Sam 5:3.
The elders of Israel assembled to anoint David as king.
·
1 Ki 8:1.
The elders of Israel assembled to Solomon in Jerusalem
to bring the ark of the covenant into the temple at its
dedication.
·
1 Ki 20:7.
King Ahab summoned the elders of Israel when Benhadad
threatened war.
·
Ezra 8:29.
There is evidence that the elders of Israel continued to
assemble after the exile. Surely the Sanhedrin was a
continuation of this.
It is not strange that the
NT does not contain explicit instructions for ecumenical
councils. The NT is silent on many issues. Frequently,
the reason is to be found in the continuity from OT to
NT. Consequently, in many matters, the search for
explicit proof texts is methodologically unsound. The
general principles are woven into the fabric of
Scripture.
Conclusion 4: the catholic church should be governed by
councils of elders as widely representative as the
church itself.
The ecumenical councils of
the early church were consistent with biblical principle
and precedent, except for the development of
hierarchical episcopacy.
The nature of presbyterial
authority
What authority does any
officer have among God’s people? The king of Israel was
God’s subject; he did not have arbitrary power but was
commanded to rule according to God’s Word; he was not to
be lifted up above his brethren (Deu 17:14-20). If that
was true of the king, it is certainly true of elders.
They are not lords over God’s heritage (1 Pet 5:3). They
do not rule on their own behalf but as ambassadors of
Jesus Christ. They represent Him. Therefore, it is usual
to distinguish between declarative and
legislative authority. Elders are not to invent new
laws but to expound and apply what Christ has commanded
(Matt 28:20). Paul commends the elders to the Word of
God’s grace (Acts 20:32). Theirs is essentially a
teaching function.
Christ rebuked the scribes
and Pharisees because they held and taught the tradition
of the elders (Matt 15:1-14; Mk 7:1-13). They had added
to Scripture the doctrines of men; and by that process
they had rendered God’s Word void. They had usurped God
and Christ. Paul opposed the same process in the early
NT church (1 Tim 1:4; 6:20; 4:13-16).
Every presbytery, whether
local or more widely representative, does not have
authority to go beyond Scripture. They must not add the
commandments of men. Their only mandate is to represent
the revealed will of God. This reformation principle,
sola scriptura, has given rise to “the regulative
principle,” which distinguishes between biblical
principles and their application to particular
circumstances. For example, the biblical principle of
the Lord’s Day must be outworked by agreeing times of
worship. The Lord’s Day is determined by Scripture; the
times of service are a matter for the judgment of the
elders. Thus, the Westminster Confession states that
there are some circumstances concerning the government
of the church that must be settled by human reason.
However, this must not become justification for
increasing the authority of presbyteries beyond their
biblical mandate. It must be made crystal clear that if
a ruling about circumstances is in conflict with
biblical principle, such rulings carry no authority to
bind the conscience or oblige the church, local or
catholic. Such rulings must be disregarded.
Dangers of Presbyterianism
This paper positively
advocates biblical Presbyterianism. However, we know
from history and bitter experience that Presbyterianism
is not an automatic solution to all the churches’
problems. Presbyteries can manifest dangerous tendencies
which are destructive of the well being of the church of
Christ. Our roots are in the Presbyterian Church of
Wales, but we were compelled to secede from it in 1968.
The reasons for secession were published in the booklet,
Whether It Be Right…? That very title, taken from
Acts 4:19, indicates that the church was being required
to obey the commandments of men rather than the Word of
God. Not only had the denomination departed from its
reformed confession,
its form of government was also unbiblical. The local
church was suffering from interference. The Presbytery
was insisting that the rules of men should be obeyed.
The church struggled to exercise the right to call its
own minister; ownership of its building was with the
Presbytery, rather than the local church. In short, the
work of God in the local church was being hindered by
the denomination.
As we seek to enter into
presbyterial union with other churches, we must not
forget our history. We should mark carefully those
tendencies which led to the secession in 1968.
1.
Hierarchy. It is a mistake to think that the more
widely representative a presbytery is, the ‘higher’ its
authority. The authority of the church courts is the
same in kind: always subordinate to Christ and
Scripture, always declarative not legislative. Scripture
does not teach a hierarchy of churches, presbyteries, or
elders.
2.
Centralism. It can happen that some of the rights
and duties of the local church are transferred to the
wider Presbytery. Matters of common concern should be
dealt with by the wider body. But that should never rob
the local church of its own full status and identity.
All of the tasks of the church are properly those of the
local church. Any tendency to steal the local church’s
liberty to function fully must be resisted. The local
church (refer back to Murray’s words above) must remain
fully a church.
3.
A legalistic tendency. Red tape, lots of rules
and regulations, legislating for the details of church
life, is surely an appalling prospect to any biblically
minded church. The NT’s silence on so many secondary
questions is striking. A sober restraint should be
evident whenever presbyteries consider adding to their
books of order. It is significant that the Jerusalem
council’s decrees were in the direction of not
imposing on the brethren any other burden than what was
necessary and the effect of that upon the churches
was that they were encouraged, they rejoiced, they were
strengthened and the churches increased (Acts 15:28,31;
16:5). The rules of men should never be enforced as if
on a par with Scripture.
This constitutes a huge
challenge to a Presbyterian church. Will it be a church
that commends itself to our nation, marked by its
freedom to obey the commandments of Christ? Where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor 3:17). Or
will it repel people who fear being deprived of biblical
liberty and imprisoned in a system of rules and
procedures? What is the effect of the Presbytery on the
ministers and elders who attend? Do they return to their
churches encouraged, strengthened, blessed? Does it
promote vitality and enrich fellowship? Or are they
dragged down to the basement of tedious administration,
where precious time, energy and resources are consumed
by minor matters, while the Word of God lies closed on
the table?
Practical Outworking in
the EPCEW
At the moment, our closest
relationships are with Bethel and the EPCEW.
Union will strengthen the reformed Presbyterian church’s
identity in England and Wales. We have confessional
unity in the Westminster Confession.
The EPCEW’s Book of Order
sets out its form of government. It uses the term
“session” for the local consistory and “presbytery” for
the wider council of ministers and elders representing
all the churches. Whilst this Book of Order agrees
substantially with the biblical principles set out in
this paper, there are differences.
1.
The authority of the Presbytery is evidently
regarded as higher than that of the session; in this
paper, the authority of Presbytery is considered to be
wider in scope and concern but not higher in kind. As a
result, at certain points the local churches are subject
to interference. The Book of Order states that the
relationship between Congregational Government and
Presbytery is governed by a principle of subsidiarity:
“there is mutual submission in matters of common
concern.” Scripture certainly calls us to submit to one
another (Eph 5:21; 1 Cor 16:16; 1 Pet 5:5). Such calls
apply to personal relationships (wives to husbands,
children to parents etc.). However, it cannot apply
absolutely to the sphere of church government. In that
sphere, it must be limited to matters of circumstance
that pertain to the wider church. In other words, the
principle of mutual submission has limited application
and we must guard against abuse.
2.
The Presbytery examines and ordains elders. On
this point, it may be that a distinction is intended
between mission churches and fully established ones.
Whereas this is an acceptable way of proceeding,
especially because elders need wider recognition to
function in the wider courts, it must be borne in mind
that the local church has a biblical (and, if biblical,
then God-given) authority to examine and ordain its own
elders. Should it become necessary for the well being of
the church, it may need to override this rule in the
book of order. Having said that, we should remember that
the first elders at Ely were ordained at the Presbytery
and the first elders at Llandaff were ordained in
co-operation with Bethel. This was done recognising the
wisdom of the presbyterial procedure.
3.
The Presbytery is given power to veto a call to
the ministry. Clearly, a minister is, from time to time,
likely to be asked to preach in other churches of the
EPCEW. It is highly desirable that his doctrinal
soundness and moral worthiness be assured. The apostle
Paul received testimony to Timothy’s worthiness from two
or three churches (Acts 16:1-3). If a man fails the test
of soundness in doctrine or purity in life, the church
is protected by this veto. However, if a call is
overturned on any other grounds, then it could become
necessary for the local church to insist on its right to
call a minister.
4.
The Presbytery has oversight of training for the
ministry and care of missionaries. It must be insisted
that this should not preclude the local church from
training its own men and sending missionaries under its
own oversight. Circumstances might warrant that. Indeed,
in many reformed churches, it is quite usual for
candidates for the ministry and missionaries to relate
to their local church and its session.
These differences do not
constitute an insuperable obstacle to union. We need
only be aware that the elders of the local church have
to give an account at the last day for the flock which
God has placed in their care (Heb 13:7,17). The duty of
church unity is only one part of their responsibility,
not the whole of it. If wider unity undermines the care
of the flock, bringing the local church into danger,
then the elders should not hesitate to withdraw from the
situation.
Conclusion
The church at Llandaff
should therefore be committed to striving for wider
church unity based on agreement in the truth, and
outworked in terms of ecumenical presbyterial
government. While moving forward, it should not allow
this to infringe upon its identity as a local church, to
rob it of due liberty, or to hinder its obedience to the
call of God. It should seek to ensure that its uniting
with other churches is a blessing to them. Let us enter
into union with our brethren determined to exercise the
love of our Lord Jesus Christ towards them, seeking to
contribute as much as we can, seeking above all the
glory of God and of Christ in His church. We have His
promise, I will build my church and the gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it. Thanks be to God.
Rev
Dr Peter J Naylor
|
