The Power and the Government of the Church

Herman Hoeksema

The Autonomy of the Local Church

From the principle of the unity of the church follows her calling to manifest this unity as much as possible in the world. Therefore, the calling of the local congregations is to unite themselves as much as possible in a denominational organization on the basis of their common confession. This denominational unity, however, cannot be imposed upon the local churches from above, but must arise spontaneously and organically from the local congregations themselves. The church is not a worldly association that has its different branches in different places. On the contrary, the local church itself is a manifestation of the body of Christ. It is autonomous. This autonomy of the local congregation the church must never deny or surrender; if she does, she soon will be under the yoke of a hierarchical power.

That the local church is autonomous is evident from scripture, especially from the book of Acts. The church in Jerusalem was not an association that established various subdivisions in different places—in Antioch, in Asia Minor, and finally in Greece and Rome. On the contrary, the apostles established local congregations that originally were without even any formal or outward connection with one another. These local congregations had their own officebearers and ministry of the word and sacraments, maintained their own government, exercised their own discipline, and took care of their own poor. These churches were, therefore, completely autonomous. But in the nature of the case, and according to the principle of their spiritual unity in Christ, these various churches sought to establish communion with one another.

From the communion of various churches arises denominational unity. Such unity and fellowship of autonomous churches with one another have their principle origin in the common life-root and common life of the churches in Christ Jesus their Lord. They seek such fellowship and unity also because they always are being attacked by a common enemy, against whom they must defend themselves in life and doctrine and because of whom they participate in a common tribulation. Their seeking of fellowship and unity is motivated also by the practical need they have of one another; in unity there is strength. They need one another to establish a theological seminary for the training of ministers of the word, to develop their common confession, and to fulfill their mandate to do mission work. It stands to reason that these autonomous churches seek and establish communion with one another based on their common confession.

It should be obvious that dogmatics is not the proper discipline in which to develop the principles of church polity. But we may call attention to the various systems of church government that have arisen in the course of history, and, second, to the principles that must govern every sound system of church government.

Erastianism

There is the system of church government named after Erastus, although it is very doubtful whether Erastus actually maintained the system of church government that now bears his name. Thomas Erastus was born at Baden, Switzerland, on September 7, 1524. He studied theology and philosophy at Basel and later at Pavia and Bologna, where he graduated as doctor of medicine. In 1560 and 1564, he attended the conferences of Lutheran and Reformed theologians at Heidelberg and Maulbronn on the Lord’s supper. At these conferences he defended the Zwinglian view of the Lord’s supper. The same conception of the Lord’s supper he maintained in a treatise, Gründtlicher Bericht, wie die Wort Christi, Das ist mein Leib.[1] His name is chiefly known because of his views on church government and especially on excommunication. Erastus considered it an unwise policy for the Protestants to cut off members from their own communion. About this question he carried on a controversy, in which he was violently opposed by Dathenus as well as by his friend Beza.

Erastus adopted the general principle that ecclesiastical censures are not the proper method of punishing crimes, but that the execution of the penal law should rest with the temporal magistrates. According to him, vice or immorality could not be the ground for prohibiting a person from receiving the sacraments. The church was to decide who belonged to its members and who were proper partakers of the sacraments, but she was not entitled to take upon herself the punishment of offenses by withholding the privileges of the church or by inflicting any other punishments on the ground of moral misconduct.

It is not clear, as Professor Berkhof states, if Erastus himself regarded the church as a society that owes its existence and form to regulations enacted by the state.[2] Nevertheless, it has become the general view that Erastianism maintains as its leading principle the authority of the civil magistrates and their control of all ecclesiastical bodies in both doctrine and discipline. Thus Erastians are commonly known as those who teach that it belongs to the function of the state to govern the church, to exercise discipline, and to excommunicate. Therefore, church censures are really civil punishments, although the application may be entrusted to the legal officers of the church.

It stands to reason that Erastianism, thus conceived, is a denial of the kingship of Christ over his church and that it does not maintain the proper separation between church and state.

Prelacy

The Roman Catholic system of church government is the episcopal system, with its theory of apostolic succession and the distinction between higher and lower clergy, culminating in the pope. The theory of the episcopacy, according to Roman Catholic writers, is based upon the Romish doctrine of a visible church. This visible church needs a visible sacrifice; this visible sacrifice needs a priest; and a priest needs special divine consecration to his office. He is supposed to receive the internal consecration from God through the external consecration of the church. That is to say, he receives the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. Hence the very establishment of the visible church, according to Roman Catholicism, requires an ecclesiastical ordination directly originating with Christ and perpetuated in uninterrupted succession, so that as the apostles were appointed by Christ, the bishops, in turn, were ordained by the apostles. These bishops, in turn, have appointed their successors until the present day. The real successor of the apostles, however, is the person of the pope, for if the bishops are supposed to be a perpetual corporation, they need a center or head authorized to exercise jurisdiction over them. Hence the episcopacy of the Roman Catholic Church finds its culmination in the pope.

Thus the Roman Catholic Church is really an absolute hierarchy—we might almost say an absolute monarchy—ruled by an infallible pope. The laity has absolutely no voice in the appointment or calling of its own officebearers. It is true that not all Roman Catholic divines are entirely in agreement on this question. Some favor what is called the papal system, according to which the pope is the sole bishop by divine right, and all other bishops exist only through him and derive their superiority to the lower clergy only from the pope. Others maintain what is called the episcopal system, which claims an independent divine right on the part of each bishop. This view maintains that the bishops, superior to the lower clergy by divine appointment, are the rightful governors of the church, and the pope is primus inter pares (first among equals) in relation to other bishops. But in principle this distinction makes no difference; besides, the papal system view is prevalent throughout almost the entire Roman Catholic world.

The hierarchical view of church government cannot be maintained either on the basis of scripture or in the light of history. From a historical viewpoint there is no proof that the pope is a direct successor of Peter and of the apostles. And as far as scripture is concerned, the Bible certainly recognizes that the church has a voice in the calling of its own officebearers.

Episcopacy

We must briefly discuss the Episcopalian system of church government, which has much in common with the conception of the Roman Catholics. The Episcopalians, both in England and in the United States, hold that there are three orders of officebearers in the church: bishops, priests, and deacons. There is some difference in this respect between the high church and the low church of England. The high church maintains that the episcopacy is absolutely essential unto the existence of the church, while the low church denies this and holds that there is nothing in the confessions of the church that makes the episcopacy essential to the church. But the general doctrine of the Episcopal church is that there is a superior order of officebearers who are the successors of the apostles and who possess in their own persons the right of ordination and jurisdiction. These superior officebearers are called the bishops (episcopoi); they are the overseers not only of the members of the church but also of the inferior officebearers, the priests and deacons. Priests and deacons receive from the bishops their ordination as well as power to preach and to administer the sacraments, but they have no right to ordain others to the sacred office. Although the priests and deacons are set over the people, they are themselves under the government of the bishop.

This system, which makes of the officebearers a separate class, in whose calling and ordination the church has no voice, is also contrary to scripture.

Independentism

The congregational system of church government is characterized by independentism. Its fundamental principle is that the local congregation is independent from any other churches and is complete in itself. The government is strictly democratic. It gives the right to vote to all adult male members, and there is no power of veto in the clergy. By the vote of the congregation, members are admitted or dismissed and censures are passed. The permanent officebearers are the pastors and the deacons, the pastor being an ordained minister chosen by the church and subject to dismissal by the church.

As far as communion with other churches is concerned, the local churches stand in sisterly relation to other congregational churches. There are no standing higher or broader gatherings, although on occasion such a broader gathering may be called to settle certain matters pertaining to the general welfare of the churches. The decisions of such broader gatherings, however, are never binding, but only declarative.

This system also is derogatory to the headship of Christ as king over his church, since independentists make their officebearers entirely dependent on the will of the congregation.

Reformed Church Government

The Reformed system of church government is probably the most difficult to understand. On the one hand, it maintains the autonomy of the local church. On the other hand, it attributes a certain power to the broader gatherings. There always has been and still is a difference of opinion regarding the relation of the autonomous congregation to the broader gatherings of classes and synod. This dispute concerns especially the question whether or not the broader gatherings can depose officebearers—ministers, elders, and deacons. According to some, in these broader gatherings the delegates are assembled by virtue of their office as pastors and elders, in which case the broader gatherings have judicatory authority and the power to depose. According to others, the officebearers can function officially only in their local congregations, and they assemble in the broader gatherings merely as delegates, not as officebearers; they have merely advisory power, and the power to depose is vested only in the consistory and in the local congregation.

The various assemblies in this Reformed system of church government are the consistory, classis, and synod. In the Netherlands the churches also have particular synods between the classes and the general synod. The consistories consist of ministers and elders, to which in small congregations the deacons are added. The minister, elders, and deacons together form a church council. From a nomination presented by the consistory, the congregation usually votes these officebearers into office. The classis, which is not a permanent body but is constituted and dismissed at each gathering, consists of two delegates, usually the pastor and an elder, from each congregation. The general synod, which also is not a standing body (although it is assembled at regular stated times), consists of delegates from each classis.

In the Church Order of Dordt, which is the general basis of church government in the Reformed churches, some articles, including Article 30, refer to the relation between the autonomous church and the broader gatherings:

In these assemblies ecclesiastical matters only shall be transacted, and that in an ecclesiastical manner. In major assemblies only such matters shall be dealt with as could not be finished in minor assemblies, or such as pertain to the churches of the major assembly in common.[3]

The question is whether the last clause may be so interpreted that the major assembly may itself initiate matters that belong to the major assembly in common, or whether the assembly is strictly limited to its own agenda.

Another article that is a serious source of difference of opinion in the Reformed churches is Article 31:

If anyone complain that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor assembly, he shall have the right to appeal to a major ecclesiastical assembly, and whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled and binding, unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with the articles of the Church Order, as long as they are not changed by a general synod.[4]

The question concerns especially the last clause of this article, “unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with the articles of the Church Order.” The question is chiefly whether the article means that the person who disagrees with a decision of the major assembly must prove to the major assembly that the decision conflicts with the word of God or the Church Order, or whether that person may consider the decision to be in conflict with the word of God or the Church Order before his own conscience.

Another cause of frequent dispute is Article 36:

The classis has the same jurisdiction over the consistory as the particular synod has over the classis and the general synod over the particular.[5]

It is generally granted that this article does not state that the major assemblies have the same jurisdiction over the minor assemblies as the consistory has over the congregation. Nevertheless, those who hold that the major assemblies have judicatory power appeal to this article, which plainly states that the classis has jurisdiction over the consistory.

It certainly would be expedient if some of these matters that pertain to the government of the churches would be definitely settled.

The Supreme Headship of Christ

The main principle of Reformed church polity that must always be remembered and maintained is that Christ is the head and the king over his church and that he rules his church by his Spirit and word.

Christ is king supreme over all things, according to scripture:

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18).

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him (1 Cor. 15:27).

And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come (Eph. 1:20–21).

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9–11).

More specifically, Christ is head and king over his church:

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion (Ps. 2:6).

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:22).

Christ has power over all things in heaven and on earth; while in a specific sense, he is the king over his church, which he rules by his grace and Spirit and word. The relation between this power over all things and his sovereignty over his church is that Christ employs his universal rule for the preservation and salvation of the church. From this principle of the headship or kingship of Christ over his church, it follows that no church or group of churches may ever subject themselves under any other yoke than Christ’s, whether it is the yoke of the state or the yoke of the pope. Only the word of Christ is law in the church.

The Offices in the Church

Christ maintains and executes his power and authority over his church through the instrumentality of men. He has appointed officebearers in his church:

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues (1 Cor. 12:28).

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Eph. 4:11–13).

These regular and abiding officebearers in the Reformed churches are ministers, elders, and deacons.

It is clear from scripture that the office of the ministry of the word arose out of the office of elder. Evidently, some elders devoted themselves more particularly to the work of the ministry of the word of God: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17). This is also plain from the letters addressed to the seven churches in Asia Minor recorded in Revelation 2 and 3. The angel of the church to whom each epistle is addressed must be the elder who labored in the word and doctrine, that is, the minister of the word.

The elders, together with the ministers, have the calling to feed and care for the flock, as well as to rule over them and to keep watch over them by word and deed:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28).

Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness (Rom. 12:6–8).

The office of deacon was instituted in the church upon the occasion of a complaint about the care of the Grecian widows (Acts 6:1–6). The deacons represent Christ more particularly as the merciful high priest. Their task is the care and comfort of the poor and indigent. It is a different office from that of the minister and elder, but may not be regarded as a lower office.

Instructions concerning the necessary qualifications of the officebearers are found in 1 Timothy 3:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?). Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless (vv. 2–5, 8–10).

Office and Calling

In order to function in a certain office, one must be called by the king of his church. This is necessary because no one may encroach upon an office. To function in a certain office, it is essential that an officebearer be appointed officially so that he can also function officially, that is, with the authority of him who sent him and called him to the office. Further, this calling is necessary both subjectively and objectively because of the difficulty and the responsibility of the task of an officebearer. He who serves in the church of Christ as an officebearer and takes his task and calling seriously bears a very heavy burden. Still more, this calling and the consciousness of this calling are necessary in order to remain steadfast against all opposition from within and from without, both in the congregation and in the world. In the midst of all such opposition, nothing but the certain conviction that Christ himself has called him to his office can make an officebearer steadfast and immovable.

The calling to a certain office in the church is subjective and objective, internal and external. To the internal aspect of the calling belongs the abiding desire to serve the Lord in his vineyard as officebearer, a desire that must have its root in the fear of God. To the internal aspect of the calling also belongs the consciousness of a certain measure of gifts, both natural and spiritual. To the external aspect of the calling belongs the fact that the Lord himself opens the way to reach the fulfillment of the desire to serve in a certain office. Above all, the opening of the way must finally be sealed by the calling of the church. Without the calling by the church there is no calling to any office whatsoever. The apostles were called and sent directly by the Lord. However, after the period of the apostles, the power to send and to ordain officebearers rests only in the church of Christ. Therefore, no matter how strong the desire of anyone may be to function in a certain office, he cannot consider himself to be called by the Lord unless he is called and ordained by the church.

The Threefold Power of the Church

Christ has endowed his church with power. We can say that Christ exercises his power through the church, particularly through the officebearers instituted in the church. The officebearers, therefore, do not receive their power and authority from the members of the church, although it is through the instrumentality of the congregation that they are called and ordained as officebearers. But they receive their authority to function in the office only from Christ. This power is usually distinguished as threefold.

First, it is a potestas docendi, the power to teach. To this power belongs the ministry of the word, both in the local congregation to the edification of the church, as well as in all the world, to the ingathering of the elect. To the ministry of the word in the local church belongs the administration of the sacraments. To this calling of the church also belongs the preservation of the truth and its maintenance over against all who oppose it. Hence it belongs to this particular power of the church to formulate its faith in specific confessions, by which the truth may be preserved in generations, officially proclaimed to all who are without, and defended over against all heretics. Finally, it belongs to this potestas docendi of the church to prepare ministers of the word of God by establishing seminaries for the cultivation of theology, that the truth may be maintained and become ever richer in the consciousness of the church.

Second, the power of the church consists in what is called the potestas gubernandi or gubernationis, the power to rule. This power is sometimes distinguished once more as the legislative power (potestas ordinans) and judicial power (potestas judicans). To the legislative power belongs the authority to make certain ordinances based upon the word of God for the ruling of the church as embodied, for instance, in the Church Order of Dordt. To the judicial power belongs the actual oversight of the local church, as well as over the individual members of that church in Christian discipline. This discipline is always of a spiritual character. Its purpose must always be the glory of God, the well-being of the church, and the salvation of the sinner.

Third, there is the potestas misericordiae, the power of mercy in the name of Jesus Christ. This power of mercy concerns first those who are of the household of faith. The church must take care of her own poor and not leave that care to all kinds of worldly associations. Although this power concerns first the members of the church themselves, there is no reason that also in the midst of the world the mercy of Christ may not be revealed as far as this is possible.

##########

FOOTNOTES:

1.  Thomas Erastus, Gründtlicher Bericht, wie die Wort Christi, Das ist mein Leib [A principle examination of the word of Christ, this is my body] (Heidelberg: n.p., 1562). This treatise he defended against Jacob Schegk in 1564: Responsio Thomae Erasti, ad libellum D. Iacobi Schegkii: quo nuper Anonymo libri sui, de una persona & duabus in Christo naturis interpreti respondit (Geneva: Crispinum, 1567); and against John Marbach in 1565: Bestendige Ableinung der ungegründten Beschuldigung damit D. Johan Marbach das Büchlein Thomae Erasti Medici, vom Verstand der Wort Christi, Das ist mein Leib (Heidelberg: Johann Mayer, 1565).

2.  Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 579.

3.  The Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches 30 (Grand Rapids, MI: n.p., 1996), 16.

4.  Ibid.

5.  Ibid., 18.