I think that the question of the organisation of the church comes under the heading of expediency: a principle that our forefathers freely acknowledged.

      The broad principles of the New Testament must be taken as a guide. The principle of simplicity safeguards against over-elaboration of organisation or worship; the principle of expediency allows great freedom in matters of detail; the principle of adaptation to need allows for various methods in differing communities; the principle of loyalty will preserve submission to Christ, the Head of the church, wherever His will is clearly made known. These principles will help to preserve Christian liberty and efficient service in accordance with the injunction of Paul, "Let all things be done decently and in order." (1 Cor. 14:40). (See R. T. Pittman, Provocative Pamphlet, No. 20, August, 1956, p.6.)

      To find but one pattern of church organisation in the New Testament seems to be impossibly difficult. The structure of the institution in which we humans must cooperate in the service of Christ must be such that the tasks get done.

      Structures have been created, and abolished, on the grounds of expediency in every church since the time of the New Testament. We must grasp the nettle of change firmly to ensure that we are not attempting to do today's tasks with yesterday's structures. The effectiveness of the mission of the church in the world requires some hard thinking, and some decisive action. If it is decided that change is needed then we are free to change. The church, because of its humanity, stands always in need of reform by the Spirit and Word of God. Where this fact is not taken seriously any fellowship is in danger of becoming a group of people with their own excellence to promote.

      In much of history, authority in human affairs was assumed to flow from above--from state or ecclesiastical authorities that had to answer for their stewardship of the power entrusted to them. Today we live in a society in which law, changing according to need, has been seen not only as from above, but also from below (sometimes entirely from below), from the consent of the governed. While some churches are learning what it is to give proper weight to the views of the governed (i.e. the laity), we are in a different position. So fierce has been our development of autonomy and individualism that we have not developed effective and appropriate instruments of cooperation in the ministry and mission of the church.

      Within the church there is need for some penultimate authority that makes decisions about the means and ends suitable to particular situations. That requires that in some sense the whole company of the disciples make decisions that are binding on those who make them. In view of the numbers involved we should, I think, accept the principle of representatives making decisions at conferences that have binding force on the members of the participating churches. We do this in political life in important matters, where it is impossible for the direct involvement of every member. This would place great responsibility upon church members. A responsibility that would ensure much greater interest in conferences than at present! From one aspect the church is an all-too-human institution, and there is no evading the delegation of authority to carry out the necessary cooperative tasks.

      Alexander Campbell in The Christian System wrote:

      "So long also as the Christian body is an organised body, having many services to perform, it must have organs or officers by which to enjoy itself and operate on society." (In my copy the preface is dated January 2, 1835, p. 61)

      In the same chapter XXV (The Christian System) he wrote:

Every citizen of Christ's kingdom has, in virtue of his citizenship, equal rights, privileges and immunities.Before any community, civil or religious, is organised, every man has equal rights to do what seemeth good in his own eyes. But when organised, and persons appointed to office, then whatever rights, duties, privileges are conferred on particular persons, cannot of right belong to those who have transferred them; any more than a person cannot both give and keep the same thing." (pp. 63-64)

I note in these quotations:

      1. A clear recognition of comparison between civil and religious communities. In early church history there was the creation of organisation after the pattern of the Roman Empire administration (with also much leaning towards Old Testament patterns in such matters as the priesthood). Our beginning in frontier America reflected the political atmosphere then and there. In both these cases expediency was the determining factor rather than any biblical 'blueprint'. (See H.J. Patterson, Provocative Pamphlet, No. 7. Pp. 4-5 A Blueprint of Church Government?)

      "Long ago we should have got beyond the local group in relation to church oversight and planning. Many of our congregations are no more, or little more, than house groups. Grave injustices of ten result from hasty actions on the part of these small groups. It would be better that they be linked with larger groups with a presiding or ruling eldership. That absolute independency or ultra-congregationalism which is characteristic of some churches is not good.

      Besides, we badly need a presiding or governing board of elders over districts at least, so that there may be an orderly development of the work. This too may save some small groups from the errors into which, because of isolationism and littleness, they are likely to fall.

      We may fail to find an actual blueprint for church government, but that doesn't mean there are no pointers or guides. We must remember that the Church is a living entity and as such should not be mechanically bound by any special type of government irrespective of the country in which it is found or of the conditions obtaining, or of the people who constitute it."

      2. There is a clear recognition of the need for agencies to carry out internal and external functions e.g.: 'organs or officers by which to enjoy oneself and operate on society'. (A. Campbell above.)

      There is a clear recognition of the need to delegate authority within the churches. More could be quoted from Campbell to show that the fierce desire to keep every right in every hand was not contemplated by Campbell as a workable way of running the institution of the church. In fear of authority from above our churches have rejected the proper delegation of authority that can alone allow an institution to function.

      I suggest that authority (in a human sense) flows from the whole body of believers who are each subject to Christ for the proper measure of cooperation with their brethren in carrying out the tasks beyond the resources of individuals or local churches. If we do delegate responsibility to someone, or some group, to act for us on our behalf, we must:

1. Define their area of responsibility.
2. Clearly define policy that they are to implement.
3. Have them answer to the whole church through the organ of 'conference' (or something like it) for their stewardship.

      From the side of the churches making up 'conferences' there must be acceptance:

1. a. Of legal responsibility for the maintenance of the organ so created.
2. b. Of the task of being alert to the need for change when it occurs so that organs are not perpetuated beyond their usefulness.

I suggest that this:

      a. In no way transgresses the authority and responsibility of the local churches. It is, indeed, a reasonable extension of it.

      b. Accepts a representative democratic manner of getting a job done about which we are mutually agreed. This is a crucial issue. At the moment there are tasks which have not begun to engage the attention of the churches because we have no clear manner of determining policy, or of setting aside men to do the research necessary to decide key questions and how to cope with them. I take it that the paramount need is to be obedient to Christ in His ministry to the world. Forms of organisation are to be created to meet Particular needs, and they can be ended when the need no longer exists.

      c. Does away with concerns about authority flowing from above or below. There are simply tasks to perform and ministries to be rendered in the name of Christ by us all together. We create bodies that are answerable to, and guided by, and sustained by, those who create them.

      d. Delegation of authority means little unless it is backed by 'enforceable law' (in the sense of the discussion in the "The Second Report of the Uniting Church of Australia", page 57-60). It does not mean authority given without checks on those exercising it. Democracy does not mean that. It gives the institution flexibility and leadership with responsibility. Responsibility within the body, and beyond it, towards Christ and the world which is His field.

      e. I believe that we are free to change towards acting together more effectively and responsibly for the sake of the mission of the church.

      f. This would mean that conference, as representing all the churches, would make decisions in the light of the best information available, and undertake the spiritual and financial responsibility of seeing that they were carried out. We face the problem that organs are created by churches to carry out functions, but the churches have no binding obligation to support them in that function. Are we among those who live in 'the romantic notion . . . that the Christian life can be lived without recourse to the wisdom to be found in the deposit of laws?' (Second Report, page 58).

We use great swelling words about cooperation--so long as it does not bind us in any way!

      Let me point to some areas in which there must be discussion and decision in our churches if we are to be able to get on with the task of the church more effectively. This concerns machinery and structure--of course it does! But it also concerns the carrying out of the mission of the church, as much as that is within our power.

      The means that we employ to this end are, I think, subject to expediency. But they are not unimportant issues. I suggest that much of the malaise in our churches is due to the ineffective channelling of the great reservoir of loyalty and devotion to Christ which is abundantly within our churches.

Hence:

      a. We are tied by nothing but prejudice to an unsatisfactory system.

      b. Policies must be formed and publicised and debated and agreed to by the churches in conference, so that agencies created by the conference are sustained by those who create them, or they are abolished. The broad formulation of ends and means must be legally binding on consenting members.

      c. The mission of the church, and health within the churches, demands change. It will require a steady process of thought and education to improve our situation, but this is a trivial price to pay if we value the brotherhood.

      d. I think we must work towards a ministry supported and disciplined by the whole church, and not answerable only to a local congregation. This raises matters of stewardship and oversight that are not being tackled at anything like a deep enough level of seriousness yet.

      e. Perhaps the key points about which we must make decisions are:

1. Whether organisational structure comes under the principle of expediency, and
2. Whether we are afraid to enter into legal relations with each other in the things that we profess to believe matter most. For too long we have been content with the de facto relations within our churches. Would wives be thrilled with such an arrangement? Have we any real reason to maintain that our Lord is any better pleased with our casualness and anarchy in the things of His kingdom?

C. L. SMITH
B.A., (Melbourne); B.Com., (Melbourne); Graduate Diploma, College of the Bible, 1949; Dip. Ed., (Monash); Advanced Dip. Ed. (English), (Adelaide); L.Th., Dip. Rel. Ed., (Melbourne College of Divinity).