Considering Polity

My previous article was the first in a series seeking to evaluate the question of restructuring Advent Christian General Conference, as discussed at the 2023 Triennial Convention, with a particular focus on evaluating the question through the lens of Scripture. That first article addressed this by seeking to answer the question, What is our authority? As this series continues, I invite you to participate in dialogue on these subjects. No one individual, myself included, has all the answers to these questions. We have a wide variety of experience in this denomination and others, as well as a wide range of biblical-theological positions. This series is, above all else, a call for serious dialogue, informed by Scripture, to help us figure out, together, what needs to change.

The last article ended with a call for us to put everything on the table. If we are going to do that, then we need to understand exactly what we are as a denomination. The purpose of this article is to help us do that, but perhaps not in the way you would expect. Generally, when the question “what are we?” is asked, the answers revolve around common beliefs or relationships. But I want us to look at our structure, and particularly how our churches relate to one another and to the levels of our denomination, orienting what we are in relation to other types of denominational structure. Let’s begin, then, with an overview of the options.

The first is Episcopalian. The term itself derives from the New Testament (Koine Greek) word episkopos, which translates most simply as overseer. This Greek word is found in two crucial New Testament passages regarding church leadership: 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7, which both address the requirements for church overseers. In Episcopalian denominations, overseers are often called bishops, a particular office that is given authority to govern a group of churches within a particular area, or a group of other bishops (which would be an archbishop). These bishops are generally appointed or elected either by the churches in the area they govern (often referred to as a diocese) or by a group of other bishops. But the primary argument does not come from the passages listed above. Rather, most of these denominations argue for some form of apostolic succession, the idea that the Apostles, based on Mark 3:14-16, were commissioned by Jesus as the leaders/overseers of the entire church and that all bishops from then on have been in a direct line of succession from the original Apostles, and deriving their authority from that connection to them.

The extent of the authority of these bishops varies among the different denominations that are organized in this way. Roman Catholics, for instance, see their bishops as holding a great amount of authority, while some episcopalian Methodists view their bishops as something closer to what we call a superintendent (but with a little more actual authority over the local church).

Simply put, the higher levels of authority are held by individuals.

Examples: Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Methodists

Next is Presbyterian. Presbyterians derive their name from the Greek word presbyteros, often translated as elder – as seen in Acts 22 I Timothy 5:17-19, and I Peter 5:1, among many other references. In Presbyterian churches, every local congregation has elders, which are often categorized as teaching elders (generally what we would call pastors) and ruling elders (what many of our churches would refer to simply as elders), a distinction that is often supported by I Timothy 5:17. These elders are chosen, or at least affirmed, by the members of that local congregation, and must be ordained either by the Presbytery (in the case of teaching elders) or the elders of the local church (in the case of ruling elders). These elders serve as the spiritual leadership, and oversee the spiritual care, of the local church.

With Episcopalians I chose not to share much about their local church government, but for Presbyterians it is particularly important. The reason is that the relationship between churches is shown primarily by the relationship among the elders. Every local congregation is a member of a presbytery, akin to our conferences, which much, generally, 2-4 per year, and these presbyteries are members of either a general assembly or synod, which usually meets annually. These bodies, the presbytery and general assembly / synod hold authority over local churches. But how they do so is particularly important. Instead of being simply bodies above the local church, they are bodies made up of the elders of local churches. These elders, working together, seek to provide mutual care, support, and accountability to one another and the member churches. The member churches are required to support one another and uphold certain standards.

One significant passage that Presbyterians use to support their denominational structure is Acts 15, where Paul and Barnabas went to the gathering of the Apostles and elders to seek the help of that gathering in addressing an important pastoral and theological issue. This passage is seen as both precedence for, and a prime example of, presbyteries and assemblies consisting of the elders of the churches.

To summarize, among Presbyterians the higher levels of authority are shared by all of the representative elders of the local churches.

Examples: Presbyterian and Continental Reformed Churches

The third is congregational. This is the one we are most familiar with. Denominationally, congregationalists are independents. Each church has sole authority, under Christ, over itself. Some congregationalist churches remain fully independent, choosing not to unite with any denomination or voluntary association, while others choose to join such organizations. But one of the keys to congregational denominations is that even when such churches join together, all of the authority is held by the local churches themselves. Generally, congregationalists do not see any support for structures with authority beyond the confines of the local church. The Jerusalem Council, in Acts 15, is often seen as unique to that time with nothing legitimately following after it, and sometimes with it only giving suggestions, not requirements, in the situations brought before it. Matthew 18:15-17 and the involvement of the church (defined here by most congregationalists as the local church) in church discipline, the involvement of the church in choosing the first deacons in Acts 6:1-6, and the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-3 are all understood as support for the independence of local congregations.

So then, for congregationalists there is generally understood to be no higher authority than the local church, other than Jesus Christ himself.

Examples: Congregationalists, Baptists

Now, this is only a very brief, and oversimplified, look at the three primary denominational structures. Within each type, there is a great deal of variance among the different denominations. And due to the generalizations needed to achieve this summary, without turning it into a full book, most people would likely say I didn’t articulate their view accurately. However, I hope this was enough to give the general ideas, and potential biblical support, of each.

This leaves us with one remaining question: where exactly do Advent Christians fit in?

Traditionally we are considered congregationalists. And for the most part we are. Association with the denomination by the local church is entirely voluntary. Each congregation remains essentially independent. No one at the conference, regional, or denominational level can tell a church what to do. There is certainly some good in this. We do not worry about how a higher authority might infringe upon our practice of the Christian faith. Where the Episcopalians and Methodists have been dealing with severe morality issues due to bishops and others in authority pushing an unbiblical agenda upon their churches, our churches have been able to confidently say, “No denominational authority can make us compromise in those ways.” That is a tremendous benefit!

There are also ways in which we differ from typical congregationalism. For instance, United Ministries acts as a unified means for churches to contribute funds to denominational work among the regions, denomination, and even world missions. Denominational and regional entities are able to manage those funds on their own, yet with the funds going into only one account. Historically this served to simplify the overwhelming number of entities that managed those funds, with very little cooperation or unity among them, from what I understand. This deviation from standard congregationalism has served an important purpose in both simplifying and unifying denominational funds.

To a degree, the office of superintendent, employed in each of our regions, is also a deviation from standard congregationalism, though other congregational denominations sometimes have similar positions (for example, the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference). A superintendent serves in a position outside of the local church, to serve the region (group of churches) in some way. But traditionally, congregational churches stand on their own except when they gather together for fellowship and instruction, without outside individuals guiding them. And there certainly can be tremendous benefits to this position, particularly in the ways they serve to encourage and support pastors.

Once again, I need to qualify that this is not an exhaustive analysis, nor is it intended to be one. There are other benefits to our structure, and there are other ways we are both like, and different from, congregationalism.

At this point I would like to suggest that there are also deficiencies in the way our denominational polity works. For now, allow me to suggest one area that I think we need to revisit: our insistence on independence from one another. Throughout the New Testament we are given commands in relation to one another. For example, we are called to love one another (John 13:34-35), have fellowship with one another (I John 1:7 – this is deeper than simply spending time with each other), and agree with one another (II Corinthians 13:11). Further, we are called to be one body (I Corinthians 12:12), not many bodies. There is a call throughout Scripture for the God’s people to be unified together as one body. Yes, each individual local church is the body of Christ within a specific location. By extension, I would argue that like-minded churches unifying together is also an expression of the unified body of Christ.

In my next article I intend to pick up on this theme by proposing that we move towards what I call “covenantal congregationalism.”

Allow me to leave you with another charge, as I did in the previous article: make an opportunity to identify what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong, both in doctrine and practice, check your list against the testimony of God’s Word, then discuss it with others.