Back to "Under Attack" .......... To Ancient SDA's
Page 3 in the original
MY ALLEGIANCE TO MY GOD AND HIS CHURCH
Barry Oliver
Many years ago I made an intentional decision to follow Christ as my Saviour and Lord. That decision was celebrated in December 1964 in my home church at Goulburn, New South Wales. With a number of my friends I was baptised by Pastor Rex Cobbin.
I have often thought about what happened on that day. I clearly remember my mother commenting a few days after my baptism that there seemed to be something different about me. No doubt, my mum was noticing something about my behaviour; and I am thankful that my baptism and decision for Christ did make an impact on my behaviour. I hope that such will always be the case. Unfortunately, however, my behaviour is not always as consistent as it should be, even as an adult - especially as an adult.
But even though my behaviour is not always ideal, it is important that I remember that when I decided for Christ and baptism, I chose to give Him my allegiance. That decision means that I have chosen to actively accept His gracious provision of salvation and live to bring honour and glory to Him. I cannot choose to act subversively or in my way to bring dishonour to Him and His kingdom. Even when I fail Him, I know that I can come to Him and seek His forgiveness. 1 know that He hears me and forgives me. I can have the assurance of His salvation, because I have chosen to accept His gracious provision. I have given, and continue to give, Him my allegiance. In consequence, I believe that in the judgment the question asked of Barry Oliver will be a question of allegiance. There is no more important question when it comes to my personal response to my God.
When I was baptised in December 1964 there was another decision which went along with the first decision. That decision also has to do with allegiance. 1 chose to give my allegiance to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That choice was based on my conviction that there is a New Testament imperative that the people of God should enjoy the benefits of the community of faith, the church - and that they should not "forsake the assembling of themselves together" (Heb 10:25 KJV). It was based on my belief that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has a divine commission to herald to the world the message of the three angels of Revelation 14 and to announce the soon return of Jesus Christ. My choice was a choice for loyalty to Christ and this church.
I continue to have this sense of loyalty to my God. In fact, as the years pass, I find that it is growing stronger. As I become more aware of the consistency of my God and His gracious initiative in offering salvation to us, I find my decision more certain and my allegiance unswerving.
With the church my experience of loyalty is a little different. The church is a spiritual organisation. Its constituent parts are vitally linked together as the body of Christ. But at the same time it is a human organisation. It comprises people just like me. That means that the church is subject to all of the foibles of human nature just as I am. It will not always act with the same consistency with which God acts. Indeed, looking down to our day, John described the church - my church - as "neither hot nor cold", "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked." But Christ still loves His church. He pleads with His church: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him and he with me" (Rev 3:15-20 NIV).
If Christ still loves the church, can I do less? Notwithstanding its humanness, my decision to be a member of this church means that I will work for this church, pray for this church, support this church, and accept the authority of this church.
Accepting the authority of the church is not something that is necessarily easy for us - especially at this time when there is almost universal antipathy toward accepting authority of any kind. The call for freedom and the rights of individuals has communicated an anti-authoritarian stance. which has become the hallmark of contemporary generations. But the church must be granted a degree of authority if it is to exist as the community of God's people in the world. To take away appropriate authority is to invite anarchy and the demise of the church itself. Christ clearly intended that His church should have authority to act in the world. To give my allegiance to Christ, to accept His Lordship and become a member of the church, is to accept that authority.
Page 4 in the original
But this authority is not exercised in an absolute sense in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. While there may be some Christian denominations which have a doctrine of, for example, infallibility or apostolic succession and thus a strongly defined line of authority, such is not the case in my church. [Comment] The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognises a model of authority that understands Christ to be the "head of the church", and it accepts His authority in the church as revealed through His Word.
In matters of church governance, Seventh-day Adventists understand that authority arises from a legitimizing process of representation and that the key to the success of this process is a broad-based participation by its members. Through consensus we grant authority to our leaders and accept the voice of the church when that voice results from the representative process that is achieved at every level of church organisation but which is best demonstrated at a General Conference session.
Seventh-day Adventists follow this process from a strong biblical precedent. It is clearly illustrated in the New Testament through the events surrounding the Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts 15. That Council held and exercised a position of considerable authority for the early believers.
Reading through Acts 15, we notice that in preparation for the Council specific communication was sent to the churches, inviting representatives to attend (vs.30). Following the Council, Paul and Timothy travelled through the region of Derbe and Lystra, where "they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey" (Acts 16:4). In consequence, "the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers" (16:5). Notice that the churches willingly accepted the decision of the Council on a doctrinal matter when a representative process was followed.
It is clear that the Jerusalem Council helps us to understand the appropriate relative authority of the local church as over and against the universal church. Local churches did have authority to discipline individuals who stepped outside the ethical and doctrinal norms of the community (Matt 18:17). However, Acts 15 tells us that the local churches were not free to transgress the lines of demarcation that defined the doctrinal and ethical positions of the wider church community. They were not free, for example, to continue to insist on circumcision once the more representative body had made a decision against the matter. With regards to the line of authority from the wider church community to the local church, as described in Acts 15, it is possible to summarise as follows:
i) The authority of the wider church reaches further than that of the particular local church in both geographical and temporal terms. The decision of the Council was to impact the church both at that time and in the future.
ii) The wider church, through its representatives, has the final word on doctrine and practice in the church at large.
iii) The decision of the Council was made with reference to Scripture. The authority of the church is never absolute but is based on the authoritative Word of God.
iv) It was the delegated leaders who exercised the right of the church to interpret Scripture and who made the final decision in this doctrinal dispute. The role of the wider church was to appoint representatives to the Council, then accept and support the decisions made.
v) Decisions which are made with reference to doctrine have practical outcomes. Faith and practice cannot be separated.
vi) By implication, the authority of the local church is greatly enhanced when it turns to the wider church when matters of doctrinal concern are to be discussed. Clearly, Acts 15 is instructive for the Seventh-day Adventist Church as it seeks to maintain its commitment to a global mission and its corollary - global organisational structure. While it is true that the events of Acts 15 were confined to a relatively small geographical area, and while it is also true that when writing to the church at Corinth Paul took a somewhat broader perspective on food offered to idols, the passage, nevertheless, does give us some guidelines as to how proper authority in the church should be granted and respected. My allegiance to the Seventh-day Adventist Church grows when I understand that it is endeavouring to apply the principles illustrated in this passage of Scripture to the complex organisational and administrative demands of coordinating the world-wide mission of the church.
In summary, the authority of the church can be understood in this way:
THE THREE-FOLD AUTHORITY OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH
A. Teaching Authority
The church is to guard and pass on the truth to each generation. See 1 Tim 1:3-4; 2 Tim 1:13; Titus 1:9-11.
B. Governing Authority
This is for the purpose of order in the church (1 Cor 14:33,40) It includes the proper regulation of the affairs of the church (Acts 20:28-31).
C. Authority of a Ministry of Mercy
This is a power to heal diseases, etc. - i.e., authority over demons, etc. - and care for the poor. See Acts 3: 1-10; Mark 14:7.
Page 5 in the original
SPHERES OF AUTHORITY IN THE LOCAL CHURCH
A. The Early Church Dispensed Discipline
This ranged from thoughtful admonition (Gal 6:1) to excommunication and the handing of a person over to Satan (1 Cor 5:5,6; Matt 16:19; 18:18).
1. When to Apply Discipline: Matthew 18:15-20
When there is reluctance to take corrective counsel from the members of the church. Romans 16:7-18
When members cause dissension and teach doctrines which are contrary to what they have been taught.
1 Timothy 5:20 For gross acts of sin (persistence in sin).
2. Results or Effects of Discipline:
a. On the Individual
Hebrews 12:10 For our own good.
1 Corinthians 5:5 For our salvation.
2 Thessalonians 3:14 That we might be ashamed.
2 Corinthians 7:9ff To repent not as the world repents, but to regret the act, because it is evil, not because we got caught.
b. On The Church
Romans 2:24 To avoid the name of the Lord being blasphemed before the world.
1 Corinthians 5:6 Because a little leaven leavens the whole lump, discipline protects the church from further decay.
1 Timothy 5:20 To remind the members of their propensity to sin and the danger it poses to them.
B. The Church Enjoyed Responsibility for, and Exercised Authority Over, a Range of Questions Affecting Internal Order
Arrangement for the collection of monies for the poor (2 Cor 8:9). The administration of' the Lord's Supper (l Cor 11:20-26).
C. Churches Had some Authority and Responsibility in the Selection of Deacons, Elders and Delegates
See Acts 6:3-6; 15:22; 1 Cor 16:3
Apostles appointed elders (2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14)
It appears that supervision, especially in the case of fledgling churches, was exercised first by the apostles and then by their appointees.
Many years ago I made an intentional decision to accept Christ as my Saviour and become a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That decision had to do with allegiance. Allegiance to God in the first place, but also allegiance to my church.
Allegiance to my church means that when I disagree with the church, I have the freedom to make my point of view known. It means that when I make my point of view known, I will do it in a way that reflects my fundamental allegiance to my church and will not bring harm to the church or to its members. It means that if the church at large elects not to agree with my point of view, my allegiance to my church demands that I do not publicly maintain my point of view and thus bring discredit to the church. It means that I may have to put my point of view aside for the time being, or maybe forever. If in my conscience I cannot do that and if my church does not agree with my point of view, I do not have the ethical right to remain in the church and disseminate my point of view, thus causing disharmony and dissension. To cause disharmony and dissension while insisting on my point of view when the church, through its legitimate representative process, has decided differently, is an act which calls into serious question my allegiance to the church. As human as it is, the church still needs my allegiance and my loyalty.
Back to "Under Attack" .......... Back to Ancient SDA's ................ Back to the beginning of this article
*********************************************************************************