What is a church? Defining it from the standpoint of its administration, we may say that a church in its local capacity is an organization of individual believers who hold in common the same faith and doctrines, and who are united in the same polity and practice of church government. In its larger sense, the church is the whole worldwide body of believers. The apostolic church was founded in Jerusalem. Evidently there was but one organization, as in the beginning all the members lived there. But as the members began to scatter and the work began to spread, new churches were organized. You may read in Acts 8 the account of how the church was scattered abroad. Consequently, it was necessary to take further steps in organization in order to maintain unity of faith and action.
A sisterhood of churches, called a conference, is the next step in binding together the interests of the churches in a given territory. Just as an individual has certain privileges before uniting with other members to form a church, so also does a local church as an individual organization. As long as it stands alone, unrelated to other churches, it can set up its own doctrinal standards, decide its own polity, and arrange its own activities as it chooses. It can define its own rules for receiving members. But when a local church unites with other churches in conference fellowship, it can no longer hold to the right to conduct its affairs in an independent way. This right belongs to the entire common body of believers. It would not be possible to maintain unity of doctrine and practice throughout all the churches, unless this principle were recognized. Instead of acting independently, each church must act in concert, or in unity, with its fellow churches.
Seventh-day Adventists have never followed the polity of independence in church government. The reason for not doing so is Scriptural, as a study of Acts 15 will show. Here we have the Gentile churches referring questions of doctrine, conditions of membership, and church polity, to the headquarters of the whole body in Jerusalem. The apostle Paul made no attempt himself to settle disputed questions of doctrine that vitally affected the whole body of believers. Neither did the leaders at headquarters attempt to settle such important questions. This was done by a group of representatives from the various churches, delegated for the purpose. As already shown, the churches held themselves bound by the action of the general body.
Within the framework of general church polity, the local church has certain rights that it exercises. It elects its own officers by a majority vote of its members who are present upon the occasion of an election. It also exercises the right to receive members into, and dismiss members from, its fellowship. Officers of the local churches are not appointed by the conference organization, except in the case of pastors. The method of selecting church officers should be in harmony with the plans approved and recognized by the general church body. These plans are set forth in detail in the "Church Manual," pages 66-70. Consequently I need not discuss them here.
Church Not a Democracy
Some compare the church to a democracy. I dislike such a comparison. It fails to give a true pattern for the church. We cannot get a true pattern for the church by comparing it with any political system of government. The church is of divine origin. Let not that fact be forgotten. Jesus Christ is the keystone of the building, the head of the corner. The church is the body of Christ; He is the head.
Secular governments are of earthly origin. Church governments cannot be patterned after earthly governments and truly embody God's plan. The church, let it not be forgotten, is the body of Christ, and He is the head. Earthly government must necessarily depend upon the element of force to compel obedience to their laws. The Scriptures symbolize this by the sword.
The church does not rightfully have recourse to the use of force, but depends upon the power of love and the willing submission of its members to carry out its plans. You know from your study of history that rivers of blood have been shed because the church, so called, has in ages past availed itself of the power of the state to enforce its decrees. But we all know that such a method is entirely outside of God's plan. Church officers should never be chosen by secular or political methods. Consecrated, loyal, capable men and women are to be chosen, and this with much prayer, that the Lord Himself may lead in their selection.
I wish to state a principle which I believe to be most vital, and which should be understood in order for us really to get a true understanding of what the church is. In all our work—whether in the church, the conference, the union, or the General Conference—the principle of divine appointment must prevail. That principle does not work in a democracy or secular government, where divine appointment is not aimed at or sought for, but where the candidate or party commanding the most votes get the office. In the church we should never lose sight of the great principle of divine appointment. This principle is expressed in Acts 13 :2: "The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." That is an illustration of what I mean by divine appointment. It is something superior to a vote by anybody of delegates, or by any committee.
Principle of Divine Appointment
When the Lord calls a man to do a certain work, that is a divine appointment which the church should always recognize and respect. I will give you several Scriptural references on this point: Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:15 ; Acts 6:3; Hebrews 5 :4. The last text says: "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Was Aaron's appointment a self-made one? No, it was not. He was called of God. That illustrates the principle of divine appointment which must ever be recognized in the church.
There are no preferred members of the church who have special rights above other members. Some people claim such special rights because they have wealth or position in the world or in society. They seem to feel that this gives them a preferred place in the church. But it should never be so recognized. All members have equal rights within the church. All have the same vote in receiving and dismissing members from the fellowship of the church, in electing delegates to the conference session, and so forth.
Some matters concerning the work and welfare of the church are considered by the church board. In many of these, the action of the board is final. Care should be exercised, however, to see that the board does not take over the functions that rightfully belong to the entire church body. I have heard of some churches in which the members are never called to vote in the matter of receiving and dismissing members. The church board presumes to do it. That is irregular and out of order, and should not be practiced. The church does not delegate to the board executive authority in filling vacancies and dismissing members. Cases have been known in which the church board claimed the right to receive the nominating committee's report before it was submitted to the church. But the nominating committee is entirely right in refusing to report to any individual member, officer, or group except to the church in session.
It is not my purpose in these studies to speak regarding the duties of various officers in the church. These matters are dealt with in more or less detail in the "Church Manual." It is proper, however, to say something regarding the qualifications of those who are called to hold church office, either in the local church or in conference work. It is possible to have the wrong kind of men in office. They may be of two classes: First—good, consecrated men, entirely lacking in the qualifications essential for the office they hold: second—unconsecrated men, wrongly placed in office. It is the duty of nominating committees and those called to give advice in such matters to see that such individuals are not called to hold office in any church organization. There are certain principles laid down for guidance in these matters. Those chosen should be:
Able men. Ex. 18 :21.
Men of honest report. Acts 6 :3.
Faithful men. 2 Tim. 2:2.
Of good reputation outside. 1 Tim. 3 :7.
Sound in the faith. I Tim. 3
Examples to the believers. 1 Tim. 4 :12, 13, 16.
Able to teach the truth to others. 2 Tim. 2:2.
Able to defend the church. Titus 1 :9-11.
Able to feed the flock. 1 Peter 5 :1-3.
Men who do not believe unsound doctrine. Titus 2 :1-7.
These are essential qualifications. I do not believe any man who is known to be unsound in the fundamentals of this truth should be entrusted with leadership in any line of church work.
Principle of Delegated Authority
Before passing from the function of the local church, I will refer again to the selection of delegates to the conference session. The final action in the election of delegates is the vote of the church. I am not speaking now as to how they may be nominated. But the final action conferring upon them delegated powers is the vote of the church. In this way the delegates have placed upon them authority to represent the church in all matters that come before the conference in session. These delegates act in a representative capacity, with delegated authority. This same principle of representation and delegated authority runs all the way from the delegates elected in the local church on through the local conference, the union conference, and the General Conference. Actions taken by any of these delegated bodies are final; that is, they are not sent back for the approval of the body sending the delegates. I have never known of a conference session's sending its actions back to the church to be voted upon. This principle of action through delegated representatives is clearly set forth in Volume VIII, pages 236, 237.
_____ To be continued in June
