|
Our Congregational forebears believed they were "completing the Reformation"
when they applied to Church structure the principles which they found in the New
Testament.
Test any organization claiming to be Congregational by the New Testament.
FACE TO FACE
The New Testament calls us to worship and serve God as revealed to us in Jesus
Christ. Does the organization follow the scriptures by trusting God's revelation
to persons directly and personally? Does it call persons to repent and believe
the gospel face to face with God, each responsible to God and to God alone? Does
it ask us to serve an institution or does it invite us to serve God?
INSTITUTION OR INSPIRATION?
The New Testament bears witness to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in
the lives of persons and Churches. Does the structure lay claim to institutional
authority, or does it trust in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in
persons and Churches individually? Does it indicate that individual persons and
Churches cannot be trusted to find and follow the leading of God's Spirit? (For
example, does it set up procedures which give authority concerning the ministry
or other part of the Church's life to committees, boards, or other bodies
outside the particular Church?) Does it put its trust in structural efficiency,
size and power, or does it show trust in the Spirit-awakened zeal and love of
responsible Christians in the responsible fellowship of the Churches?
In a word, is the prime principle of the organization trust in itself or trust
in God?
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH
The New Testament portrays the Church as the covenanted fellowship of those who
dare to be followers of Jesus Christ, gathered into particular Churches in each
community, believing themselves to be one in fellowship with all people who
share their common allegiance to Christ as Lord.
In the New Testament the work "Church" always means either the particular Church
in a given community, or the universal fellowship of all Christ's followers;
past, present, and future.
Does the organization use the word "Church" in the way in which the word is used
in the New Testament? Does the structure apply the Scriptural principle that
"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them"? Or does it "recognize" a "Congregation" by institutionally established
rules?
Is the fellowship inclusive enough to welcome our Quaker brethren as
fellow-Christians? Does it set up sacramental standards which would exclude
them?
PEACE AND PURITY
The New Testament calls all persons to repentance and faith. Jesus said to a
forgiven person, "Go and sin no more." Paul urged the Corinthians to guard the
peace and purity of life in their Church. Does the structure provide "national"
standards for Church membership? Or does it completely omit all reference to
Church membership, thereby clearly recognizing that Church membership is a
personal relationship to God and a covenant relationship to a particular Church?
Does the structure provide any means by which responsibility for discipline of a
minister can be referred to any other body? Or does it prohibit such reference
to "higher bodies" in recognition of the inescapable responsibility to God alone
in the particular gathered Church which is central in Scripture and in
Congregational usage?
ADVICE AND COUNSEL OR ... ?
The New Testament portrays the counseling together of Churches to seek the mind
of Christ and give advice in time of need. Does the structure provide for mere
"congregations" which shall support the program of denomination as a whole, on
the pretext that the denomination is the Church? Or does it provide for Churches
which shall meet together for advice and counsel? Does the structure provide for
control over the churches by a General Synod, Conference, or other body? Does
the structure indicate that "counsel" really means "requirements"? Or does it
explicitly declare that "counsel" has as much weight as it has worth, no less
and no more? Is a Church a Church or a "congregation" which is simply the basic
unit of a national organization?
COMMITTEE-CONTROLLED OR GOD-DIRECTED?
The New Testament tells us that Churches, ordained leaders, and the members
themselves took part in the "laying of hands." Does the organization claim for a
General Synod, Conference or any other body any authority to ordain, license,
call, dismiss, install, recognize, or otherwise oversee the pastor-Church
relationship? Or does it faithfully follow the New Testament principle that this
precious relationship is the inalienable choice of a pastor and a people acting
under the direct guidance of God, sought in prayer and exercised only in
response to the leading of the Holy Spirit? Does the organization distrust the
principle of Spirit-directed pastor Church relationships, claiming that the
guidance of some other body (General Synod, Conference) is more to be depended
upon than the guidance of God in Church meeting?
WIDER BODIES AS AGENCIES
The New Testament Churches appear to have been gathered by spontaneous groups or
selfless leaders, and the subsequent association of the Churches with each other
appears to have taken place as the Churches needed agencies to do their work.
Does the organization recognize the wider bodies which the Churches have crated
as agencies for wider work and organs of fellowship, or are the wider bodies
represented as over the Churches with assumed authority to reorganize and/or
control the Associations, Conferences, Boards and Agencies which have been
created by the Churches and the Church members, as their agents?
LAY MINISTRY
The New Testament bears ample testimony to the ministry of those who were not
ordained. Is the matter of lay ministry in the Churches seen as an inevitable
outcrop of New Testament Christianity, in each particular Church, or is it
regulated by bodies beyond the local Church?
FAITH, FREEDOM, FELLOWSHIP OR ... ?
The New Testament sets forth principles of faith, life and work; it is the
record of what God did through persons responsive to God's call. Is the
organization a simple, straightforward example of Christian principles put into
practice which calls us to unite in diversity, to adventure for Christ? Or does
it say Churches are free and, at the same time set up rules which deprive that
freedom of any real meaning?
|
