Macrorepentance: Authority in Presbyterial Polity

In Acts 15 the apostles and elders of the early Christian movement gathered to resolve a sharp difference of opinion. Some followers of Jesus were convinced that, in order to be a disciple, a gentile first had to become a Jew. Others disagreed. According to the Acts account of that gathering, there was much discussion. Peter spoke prominently. Barnabas and Paul reported the amazing ways that the Lord had blessed their missionary efforts. Then James, the half brother of Jesus, crystallized the leading of the Spirit. He articulated an opinion that was embraced by the entire assembly.

The apostles and elders then sent a letter to the congregation in Antioch, the church whose radical missionality had evoked the issue in the first place. The writing and sending of that letter is one of the most important events in the history of our movement.

That letter established a new ultimate authority in the Jesus movement.

As difficult as it may be to comprehend, that letter became an authority even greater than that of the teachings of Jesus because it articulated the common understanding of all the Jesus’ apostles and the church’s elders on how the teachings of Jesus are to be applied.

From that day on no one citing even the teachings of Jesus Himself in a way that contradicted the letter would be accepted.

The biblical reality is that when the elders of the church speak what they say becomes the highest authority in the church.

In the New Testament era no person, no matter what his position or authority, could teach or preach or minister in a way that contradicted the letter: Not James, whose insight inspired the letter, not Peter, not Paul, not Barnabas. No one and no thing possessed higher authority, even in the New Testament era, than the proclamation of the apostles and elders.

From the day the Church of God was formed in October 1830, it has defined as an Eldership. To this day, the Church of God operates with the understanding that its ultimate authority lies in community of the called in exactly the same way that the authority of the apostles and elders was the ultimate authority among New Testament disciples.

As was the case in the New Testament, each CGGC congregation is, according to what we believe, accountable to the authority of the Eldership. We are not Congregational.

More to the point, people who hold positions of authority in the church are also accountable to the authority of the Eldership. They are not Bishops and Cardinals and Popes. We are not Episcopal.

It is with that understanding of our polity based in the “New Testament plan” that I have been making so great an issue of the CGGC Mission Statement.

When the Executive Director, the members of the General Conference staff and of the General Conference Administrative Council gathered in September 2008, they created, for the first time in 178 of our history, a document that purports to speak for our entire body and to which all of us are accountable. They did nothing short of writing an Acts 15 letter to the whole church.

Unbidden, a relatively small group of our assembled elders asserted their right to pen a document that provides the lens through which we all must understand the teachings of Peter and James and John and Paul—even the teachings of Jesus Himself. The existence of this document—this Mission Statement—was then announced in the Church Advocate. And, all of us in the community of the called rolled with that punch as we roll with every punch thrown at us by those on top of the CGGC food chain. No one questioned the Ad Council or the Mission Statement. As far as I know, apart from me, no one ever thinks theologically about what they have done to us.

But, because we are Presbyterial, the Mission Statement supplants even Scripture as our highest authority because it interprets Scripture for us. According to what we believe about the church, all of us are accountable to it, even Ed Rosenberry and his staff are, even our regional directors and their staffs, if they have them are, even our most wayward congregations are.

Here are some thoughts I have about our polity:

1. Presbyterial polity is extremely unstable. It naturally breaks down.

While it will continue to function in theory, congregations begin to operate on their own authority. They cease to be accountable to the larger body. They behave as if their “Eldership” doesn’t exist and the Eldership accepts their autonomy.

Not only does Presbyterial polity deteriorate toward Congregationalism, it also deteriorates in the direction of Episcopacy.

The body becomes increasingly institutional and hierarchical. The size of the ruling class increases at an exponential rate. People in positions of authority function in a way that is increasingly authoritarian.

And, not only do congregations begin to function congregationally and denominational leaders episcopally, the presbytery/eldership/community of the called itself accepts its subordinate role and submits to the authority of both congregations and leaders.

CGGC Presbyterianism has deteriorated. It exists today only in theory.

We, for example, don’t even think about holding individual congregations accountable to the Mission Statement. In practice, our congregations are freer from their Conference’s authority than any Southern Baptist congregation is from its Convention.

What is most disturbing to me, however, is the authoritarian way CGGC leadership now functions. Our leaders, quite gently and tenderly, assume their right to outpope the Pope. CGGC leadership holds itself in so high an esteem that it doesn’t even accept its accountability to itself!

CGGC leadership recently reached new heights (depths?) in asserting unbounded authority when the same Administrative Council that produced a Mission Statement, produced a credentials document and a revision of We Believe that defies that very Mission Statement. In doing so it was, for all intents and purposes, telling the CGGC Body:

“We assert ongoing ex cathedra authority. We are not accountable to the body. In fact, we are not even accountable to any previous incarnation of ourselves.”

The Pope doesn’t even think he possesses the authority in Roman Catholicism to do the things that our Ad Council and Executive Director and his staff have done in the past few years. He, at least, believes that he is accountable to previous Popes.

These are good people. This is, very simply, what happens when presbyterial polity breaks down. We need macrorepentance.

2. The leadership of the CGGC—the Executive Director and his staff and the Ad Council—need to be disciplined not for creating the Mission Statement, though I think they’ve done us harm by writing it, but for defying the Mission Statement in the revision of We Believe and in the credentials document they reported/sent to General Conference sessions—both of which defy the “New Testament plan.”

3. The Mission Statement should be rescinded. I’m certain that John Winebrenner is spinning in his grave knowing that our only rule of faith and practice is a Mission Statement.

4. Leaders must be de-poped. Congregations must be de-congregationalized. The authority of the body, as it is modeled in the New Testament, must be reasserted.

5. We need to begin to think theologically before we act on whims and embrace new fads. We need to think the way we thought in the days of John Winebrenner.