We have passed, in our study, from the one-family form of organization to the one-nation form; now we come to another phase. In God's plan there was to come a time when from all nations, people were to be brought under the influence of the principles of His truth as represented in the church. Notice the order : First, one family, then one nation, and then all nations. Then from the Founder of the church Himself came the instruction: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel." To whom? "To every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." So God's plan gradually spread and developed from the one-family unit with the father as the head, to Israel as the nation, and then to all the nations of the world.
What was the form of administration, or government, of the New Testament church? We have the best illustration of that in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. There you will find the record of a meeting to which delegates came up from other sections to participate. Please notice this, because, I think, it is fundamental. We read: "Certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had not small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." Verses I, 2. The first part of the chapter describes that session. Coming down to the thirteenth verse, we read: "After they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me." Who was James? He was the presiding officer of that session.
This meeting was what might be called a conference session. Some who taught disquieting doctrines, had interfered with the peace and prosperity of the church. Paul and Barnabas had had no small dissension with these men, but they did not alone attempt to settle what appeared to be so fundamental a question. These two men, with other brethren, were sent up to join the group in Jerusalem for a settlement of the question. After the brethren had spoken, fames, as chairman and presiding officer, gave the decision of the council. We read, beginning with the twentieth verse, that that decision was put in writing, and by the hands of leading men was sent out to all the churches. All the churches rejoiced and accepted the decision as finally settling the question.
That session was nothing more or less than the gathering together of a representative group. We might call it a General Conference session. The church in Jerusalem did not attempt to settle the matter without representatives from the churches in the regions beyond. On the other hand, the churches out in these regions did not attempt to settle the question by themselves, but the brethren came together to study and decide the matter.
Again, in Acts 20:17, we find the apostle Paul calling for the elders of the churches: "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." From the twenty-ninth verse onward we find he gave counsel to the church through this representative group gathered there for counsel. Here again we find this principle of representation—a representative form of church government. These illustrations show that the apostolic church was administered by groups of churches' sending representatives to meet together to lay plans for the church and to counsel together. Here again we have the pattern upon which the Seventh-day Adventist Church polity is founded.
With reference to the calling of men to bear responsibility, we find in Titus 1:5 that it was the practice of the early church that the church elders be ordained by ordained ministers. Then we find in I Timothy 4:14 (where the apostle Paul is reminding Timothy of his ordination), that he was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. What is the meaning of the word "presbytery" ?—A group or body of elders. Evidently it was what we would call a conference session, and not a meeting of a local church.
Forms of Church Government
I now quote from our own "Church Manual," pages 9 and 10:
"There are generally recognized forms of church government, which may be summarized briefly as follows:
"1. Independency—a form of church polity that makes the local church congregation supreme and final within its own domain. This form is usually referred to as congregationalism.
"2. Representative—a form of church government that recognizes the right of the people to participate, at the same time recognizing the authority of representative or delegated bodies in church government, thus emphasizing the unity of the entire church body, instead of individual or local churches. Also that recognizes the parity or equality of the entire ministry.
"3. Prelacy—the episcopal form of church government by bishops, usually with three orders of ministers, as bishops, priests, and deacons.
"4. Papal—the form of government of the Roman Catholic Church. The supreme authority is vested in the Roman pontiff, and from him the church is governed by cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests. The local church or individual member has no voice in church administration or government."
Which one of the four do we follow?—The second, the representative form. This form of church government recognizes the right of the people to participate, but at the same time recognizes the authority of representative, or delegated, bodies in church government, thus emphasizing the unity of the entire church body the world around.
To what do we ordain men?—To the ministry. How many orders of ministry do we have in the Seventh-day Adventist Church?—Just one. We do not ordain men to different orders of the ministry, or to hold some office. I remember being present in a Roman Catholic cathedral and witnessing the service of ordination for a bishop. Once a bishop, always a bishop,—ordained for life. It was a very ornate and spectacular service. The man who was ordained as bishop was, I suppose, first ordained as deacon, then as priest, and then he was called or appointed to the office of bishop, for which he had to be specially ordained, or consecrated, or set apart. In our church, when a man is called to the ministry, he has the highest calling to which God calls a man on earth—the office of minister. A man may be asked to hold an office, but that does not add anything to his power, his prerogatives, or his privileges. There is just one office that we recognize in ordaining men, and that is the office of the ministry. I am glad that that is so. For I think that system follows the New Testament pattern.
People Participate
"Every member of the church has a voice in choosing officers of the church. [When Mrs. White speaks of the church here, she means the church in its larger sense, as a whole.] The church chooses the officers of the State conferences. Delegates chosen by the State conferences choose the officers of the union conferences ; and delegates chosen by the union conferences choose the officers of the General Conference. By this arrangement, every conference, every institution, every church, and every individual, either directly or through representatives, has a voice in the election of the men who bear the chief responsibilities in the General Conference."—"Testimonies," Vol. VIII, pp. 236,237.
How are all officers of the church elected? —"Either directly, or through representatives." Here the principle of representation is brought to view. This is all done through the delegation of authority, given to the chosen representatives, who in turn act for those they represent.
We should never lose sight of the importance of the individual member as the basic unit in God's plan. You recall the apostle Paul's expression, "Warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." "Every man" is used three times in this one sentence. I think we sometimes make a mistake by thinking only in terms of groups rather than keeping the individual in mind. We are working for the salvation of men. In groups?—No, as individuals. After all, the work of gathering souls into the church is done by gathering in individuals.
Apart from the organized church, an individual has complete freedom to believe, preach, or practice as he chooses. He can worship when he chooses, or in any manner he chooses. He is entirely self-governing. He chooses no officers to direct his worship or his activities. But when he voluntarily chooses to unite in his service and worship with others of like belief, what does he have to do? Can he still maintain that absolute liberty of worshiping when and where and how he pleases? He cannot. The rights and privileges of independence he possessed as an individual he now surrenders to the common purpose and objective.
In the very act of uniting with the church in fellowship, he makes himself one member of a group; and instead of acting independently he must now act in concert with his fellow believers. He does not now have the right he had before to fix the hour or day for worship, or make similar independent decisions. Those things now are all matters that belong to the group, and not to the individual. An individual must always sacrifice something to the entire group. He must relinquish the independent rights that he formerly enjoyed as an individual. It is the church, then, and not the individual, that decides such questions.
—To be continued in May
