.

      Church Government According To The Bible

      Copyright © 2014 Simon V. Goncharenko. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

      Wipf and Stock

      An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

      199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

      Eugene, OR 97401

      www.wipfandstock.com

      ISBN 13: 978-1-62564-368-1

      EISBN 13: 978-1-63087-438-4

      Manufactured in the U.S.A. 09/15/2014

      Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org)

      To my wife—for believing in me and encouraging me through some of the hardest years of our lives together.

Foreword1

      We believe this is a book all church leaders need to read and digest. In writing on the subject of church governance, author, pastor, and professor Simon Goncharenko has blended his superb academic experience and achievements with his current church-planting ministry.

      The author also writes from a diverse cultural background. Growing up outside the American milieu has added to his hermeneutical skill in interpreting Scripture and applying biblical truth cross-culturally. His emphasis on supracultural principles that flow from the biblical story is an important presupposition in approaching the subject of church governance.

      Beyond Goncharenko’s abilities in interpreting Scripture, he also brings his understanding of governance to bear through the lens of church history—one of his academic specializations. Goncharenko’s command of New Testament history and the eras that follow make his observations regarding past and present governance models both astute and insightful. We believe he accurately demonstrates that the New Testament story of the church does not teach that episcopalian, presbyterian, or congregational models are absolute forms for church governance per se. Furthermore, whenever these models or any others are presented as a fixed biblical pattern, it leads to practices that are, at least in some respects, out of harmony with biblical functions and absolute principles. This is particularly true in planting churches transculturally.

      From a pragmatic perspective, we have no disagreement with Goncharenko’s overall approach to church governance. Our point of divergence would be his proposal that Scripture teaches a pattern or form involving eldership and congregational governance. Even here, we acknowledge there is a “fine line,” depending on how we define terms.

      In essence, we believe the Holy Spirit has not given us absolutes in terms of any ecclesiological forms and structures. Rather, that which is absolute are normative activities and functions that yield supracultural principles, which in turn enable believers in every culture of the world and at any moment in history with the freedom to develop forms and structures that are not only culturally relevant, but are also in harmony with the timeless truths revealed in the word of God.

      In this sense, we would disagree with Cartwright, whom Goncharenko cites, who states that the Scriptures provide a single pattern for the church that amounts to a perpetual and immutable law for all succeeding generations living under the Gospel. If Cartwright were correct, it would mean that God would have imposed on us patterns that are uniquely related to various first-century cultures, which would have restricted the progress of the Gospel. Furthermore, it would have violated Paul’s clear statement regarding church planting—to “become all things to all people so that ‘we’ may by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:23). Here “the means” Paul refers to are clearly not the absolutes of Scripture, but the patterns, forms, structures, and methodologies that are culturally relevant without violating the absolutes in Scripture.

      From our perspective, there are no structural patterns that are comprehensive or even clearly discernible in the New Testament story of the church. It’s definitely true that we cannot function without form, but the Holy Spirit guided the authors of Scripture to describe numerous functions without describing their forms. And when references to forms for church governance are mentioned, they are always partial and incomplete. We believe this ambiguity is intentional and by divine design, since social history demonstrates a universal tendency, even among Christians, to be more “form conscious” than “function-oriented.” In fact, if we’re not careful, we tend to superimpose forms and patterns on Scripture that are missing in the biblical text. When this occurs, it naturally leads to the variations in organizational church polity that proponents claim to be supracultural. In fact, their different conclusions regarding governance affirm the ambiguity in the New Testament story, supporting “freedom in form.”

All this leads us differ from Goncharenko with regard to his conclusions that the biblical model for church governance is one of multiple elders in each local church blended with congregationalism. We readily agree, however, that the model he supports is an extremely viable form with many positive values that are in harmony with supracultural principles for church governance. In fact, there are also some biblical and pragmatic values in all the governance models he cites. In other words, we believe all of these approaches reflect the “freedom in form” that Scripture illustrates rather than being, as Goncharenko cites, an “organizational blueprint.”2

      Frankly, we prefer the term “functional blueprint.” Furthermore, we would also cautiously use the term “biblical model” to describe church governance—unless we’re using this term “functionally” rather than “structurally.”

      Having said this, we believe the best illustration of a biblical and “functional model” for church governance is the biological family or the “household model.” The Scriptures reveal that, with few exceptions, most of the New Testament churches grew out of extended households that came to Christ. For example, we see this illustrated in Colossae, where the church evidently grew out of Philemon’s household. The same thing happened in Corinth, where Crispus and his entire household believed in the Lord (Acts 18:8), and in Philippi, where Lydia and her whole household believed. And we find that this church expanded quickly after the jailor’s entire household became a part of the believing community (Acts 16:15, 34). We can also conclude that these godly fathers may have become some of the first elders/overseers in these city churches.

      This observation correlates with one of the most important qualifications for serving as elders/overseers (terms Goncharenko correctly notes are interchangeable). Paul wrote to Timothy that a man who is selected for this position should be “one who manages his own household competently, having his children under control with all dignity. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?)” (1 Tim 3:4–5). Paul repeats this same basic qualification in his letter to Titus, who was appointing elders/overseers in the various towns on the island of Crete (Titus 1:6).

      Both of us come from different traditions in terms of church polity. However, we have arrived at the same conclusion in terms of absolutes in functions and non-absolutes in forms. This gives us great freedom to develop a system of governance that is in harmony with supracultural principles, but also culturally relevant. In conclusion, both of us want to affirm this work as researched and written by Simon Goncharenko. He welcomes dialogue and discussion—hence this foreword. May it be said of all of us, as it was said of the Bereans: “They . . . examined the