EIGHTY-THIRD ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Annual Conference Proceedings
1966
The Eighty-Third Annual Conference of the Bible Fellowship Church convened in the Grace Church, Reading, Pennsylvania.
The Conference opened at 10:00 a.m. , October 10, with the singing of "Majestic Sweetness Sits Enthroned"led by David E. Thomann. The Pastors' Quartet sang, "He Was Wounded for our Transgressions" and the host pastor James G. Koch read the scripture and led in prayer.
District Superintendent, Chairman, T. D. Gehret gave the opening address based on I Corinthians 15:58 outlining the basic characteristics of the minister of the gospel under the enduement of the Holy Spirit.
District Superintendents, T. D Gehret and A. L. Seifert conducted the communion service.
The Chairman instructed the Secretary, N.H. Wolf, to appoint his assistants. He appointed Ernest B. Hartnian, Assistant Secretary and Robert W. Smock, Recording Secretary.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PROGRAM
Monday, October 10, 1966 - 10:00 a.m.
Song Leader Rev. David E. Thomann
Pastors"Quartet Senior
Scripture Rev. James G. Koch
Prayer Rev. James G. Koch
Message Rev. T. D. Gehret, D. S.
Lord's Supper Rev. T. D. Gehret, and Rev. A. L. Seifert
Tuesday, October 11, 1966 - 9: 00 a. m.
Song Leader Rev. Harvey J. Fritz Jr.
Solo Rev. Carl C. Cassel
ScriptureRobert Breitegam
Prayer Norman Reed
Message Rev. Willard Cassel, Secretary, Foreign Mission Board
Wednesday, October 12, 1966 - 9:00 a. m.
Song Leader Rev. William A. Heffner
Pastor’s Quartet Junior
Scripture John I. Mengel
Prayer Roy Williams
Message Rev. Jansen E. Hartman, President, Berean Bible School
Thursday, October 13, 1966 - 9:00 a.m.
Song Leader Rev. Robert F. Johnson
Solo Rev. Bert N. Brosius
Scripture Byron Cassel
Prayer Horace Kauffman
Message Rev. Earl M. Hosler, Director, Church Extension
Evening Conference service open to the public - 7:30 p.m.
Rev. James G. Koch, Host Pastor, presiding
Pastors' Quartet (Senior)
Scripture Rev. C. E. Kirkwood
Prayer Rev. John H. Riggall
Message Rev. W. B. Hottel
Friday, October 14, 1966 - 9:00 a.m.
Song Leader Rev. Daniel G. Ziegler
Solo Rev. Leroy S. Heller
Scripture Charles G. Hersh
Prayer Harold Griest
Message Rev. A. L. Seifert, D. S.
Note: Devotional period - 30 minutes (except Monday). Messages 15 minutes.
(James G. Koch, George L. Herb, Ernest W. Bean, Committee)
The report was adopted.
Resolved, that the first 8 pews across the church shall constitute the Conference Bar.
The following were enrolled as members of the Conference:
MINISTERS - Russell T. Allen, E. W. Bean, James A. Beil, Bert N. Brosius, Alva C. Cassel, Carl C. Cassel, Willard E. Cassel, John Dunn, Raymond Dotts, Harvey J. Fritz, Jr. , Reynold D. Gardner, Sr. , T. D. Gehret, John E. Golla, Ernest B. Hartman, Jansen E. Hartman, W. W. Hartman, William A. Heffner, LeRoy S. Heller, Frank L. Herb, Jr. , George E. Herb, F. B. Hertzog, Earl M. Hosler, W. B. Hottel, Robert F. Johnson, C. E. Kirkwood, Donald T. Kirkwood, Richard H. Kline, Donald R. Knauer, James G. Koch, Ronald C. Mahurin, Leon K. Overpeck, Robert Paul, R. C. Reichenbach, John H. Riggall, Donald B. Schaeffer, A. L. Seifert, Robert W. Smock, David E. Thomann, David J. Watkins, Norman R. Weiss, N. H. Wolf, Daniel G. Ziegler, Paul E. Baer, W. F. Heffner, E. E. Kublic, J. B. Layne, E. J. Rutman, P. T. Stengele.
DELEGATES
ALLENTOWN DISTRICT
Allentown (Bethel) - Kermit K. Gehman
Allentown (Cedar Crest) - R. Paul Schaeffer
Catasauqua - Arthur W. Deppe
Graterford - Edward A. Stortz
Harrisburg - Walter A. Schlagel
Harleysville - H. Phares Mumbauer
Hatfield - William C. Rapp
Lancaster - Horace A. Kauffman
Lebanon - Jack S. Herb
Lehighton - Willard Blocker
Mount Carmel - Roy E. Williams
Nazareth - Norman W. Granda
Paradise - George J. Dippner
Reading - Robert Breitegam
Royersford - William R. Hunsberger
Shamokin - T. Lamarn Manney
Spring City - John F. Boyle
Sunbury - Allan F. Smith
York - Sterling Baer
BETHLEHEM DISTRICT
Allentown (Salem) - Robert E. McIntyre
Bethlehem - Paul H. Cressman
Blandon - John I. Mengel
Coopersburg - Harold A. Mann
Denville - John Moran
Easton - Leonard Kessler
Emmaus - Paul I. Wentz
Fleetwood - Norman L. Reed
Maple Glen - Byron C. Cassel
Philadelphia (Calvary) - Harry Wilkinson
Philadelphia (Emmanuel) - Edward J. Dietzman
Quakertown - Harold Shelly, Jr.
Scranton - Carl H. Kellerman
Staten Island - Kenneth E. Cole
Stroudsburg - George R. Fish
Terre Hill - David E. Weidner
Wallingford - Harold Griest
Zionsville - Charles Hersh
Whereas, Charles G. Hersh, Delegate, and Bright N.Heist, Alternate Delegate, are unable to attend all sessions of Annual Conference, therefore,
Resolved, That whenever they are able to attend, they be seated in the Conference Bar according to their order.
Resolved, That John Dunn and Edward J. Dietzman be excused Wednesday morning and afternoon to attend a funeral.
Kenneth E. Cole, David E. Weidner, John F. Boyle, William C. Rapp and Harold Shelly, Jr., new Delegates, were introduced to the Conference.
The Chair appointed the following committees:
Committee on Finance: Paul I. Wentz, Byron C. Cassel, Roy E. Williams, Harold W. Griest, Kermit K. Gehman.
Committee on Communications: William A. Heffner, Russell T. Allen, W. W. Hartman, Bert N. Brosius, James A. Beil.
Committee on Resolutions: C. E. Kirkwood Carl C. Cassel, David E. Thomann, Harvey J. Fritz, Jr. , Daniel G. Ziegler.
Committee on Auditing: James G. Koch, Paul H. Cressman, Norman Granda, William C. Rapp, William R. Hunsberger, Horace A. Kauffman, Norman L. Reed, W. B. Hottel.
Committee on Examination of Local Conference Minutes: F. B. Hertzog, E. W. Bean, Frank L. Herb, Leon K. Overpeck, Alva C. Cassel, Harold Shelly, Jr., A. W. Deppe, Harold A. Mann, Walter A. Schlagel, Allan F. Smith, John F. Boyle, Edward A. Stortz, H. Phares Mumbauer, John I. Mengel.
Committee to Examine Annual Conference Minutes: Richard H Kline, John Dunn.
Timekeeper: LeRoy S. Heller
Reporter: R. C. Reichenbach
Tellers: E. W. Bean, James G. Koch, R. C. Reichenbach, David J. Watkins, Daniel G. Ziegler,.
REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE:
Nominees proposed by the Nominating Committee have been contacted and each person whose name is submitted has agreed to the nomination.
All names will be submitted in alphabetical order.
Lists of proposed nominations will be submitted to the members of Annual Conference at least one session prior to the scheduled election.
We recommend the following to Annual Conference:
Whereas, various members of Annual Conference have been nominated from the floor after the Nominating Committee has submitted nominees, and
Whereas, some of these additional nominees were already members of Boards and Committees that draw heavily on their time and may not desire to take on additional responsibility; therefore be it
Resolved, that no nominations be submitted from the Conference floor without having first secured the permission of the person being nominated.
(C. E. Kirkwood, Chairman; Horace A. Kauffman, Secretary; John H. Riggall, Russell T. Allen, Richard H. Kline, Paul H. Cressman, Robert W. Gehret, Committee).
Resolved, That we suspend the rules and adjourn to meet at 3:30 p.m.
Adjourned 11:40 a.m. with prayer by Earl M. Hosler.
Second Meeting
Monday Afternoon, October 10, 1966
The meeting was opened with the singing of "Blessed Assurance" and W. W. Hartman led in prayer.
The minutes of the first meeting were read and approved.
Resolved, That no one be permitted to leave the Conference without permission of the Chairman, except Pastor James G. Koch, and Delegate Robert Breitegam.
REPORT OF THE YOUTH FELLOWSHIP GENERAL COMMITTEE: (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
Resolved, That each Youth Fellowship remit an offering for the work of the Youth Fellowship General Committee, and that this offering be payable to the treasurer of the Youth Fellowship General Committee and that it be submitted to the secretary of said Committee at the Adjourned Session of this Conference.
Resolved, That the election of two laymen to fill the unexpired terms of the Youth Fellowship General Committee be referred to the Nominating Committee.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION AND PRINTING: (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER: (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
REPORT OF THE SUNDAY SCHOOL PROMOTION COMMITTEE: (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
Resolved, That every Bible Fellowship Sunday School make a contribution. This contribution should be mailed to the Financial Secretary of the Committee before April 1, 1967.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON MINISTERIAL CANDIDATES
The Ministerial Candidate Committee met ten times during the year. The work of securing and screening candidates for the gospel ministry of the Bible Fellowship Church was continued. Men were studied and examined as to their Christian experience, call of God to the Christian ministry, preparation for service, and their agreement with our Faith and Order. The prayers of our people for God to call men into His harvest work in the Bible Fellowship Church are desired by this Committee. God's guidance must be diligently sought in performance of its important duties.
The Committee realizes that any church which takes seriously the command of our Lord to make disciples must train men for the ministry. Knowing that the Bible Fellowship Church is no exception, we have earnestly studied and are presently in the process of preparing a program of field work to provide for practical training and experience under supervision. Such a program is generally called: Field Work, and the Lord willing, such a program will be presented in the future for adoption by Annual Conference.
The following men were recommended to the Credentials Committee for examination for ordination: T. James Bigley, John H. Herb and Bruce A. Ellingson.
The Committee recommends recognition of the following men in their respective stages of development:
Probationers:
T. James Bigley, Bethlehem, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1962
Leonard Buck, Union of South Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1958
M. Leslie Campbell, Walnutport, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1961
Bruce Ellingson, Finesville, N. J.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1963
Richard J. Gehman, Kenya, East Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1964
John H. Herb, Belvidere, N. J.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1962
Roy Hertzog, Monte Carlo, Monaco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1959
Paul Kuder, Allentown, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1966
Robert E. McIntyre, Allentown, Pa. (On leave of absence). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1958
Keith E. Plows, Allentown, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1966
Theodore R. Shelling, New York, N. Y.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1966
Austin B. Sullivan, Miller Heights, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1964
Harold C. Weaber, Millersville, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1963
Candidates:
David Branning, Lansdale, Pa.
David Manney, Avoca, N. Y.
Paul G. Zimmerman, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Ronald Zuck, Fort Washington, Pa.
Applicants:
William Bartron, Stroudsburg, Pa.
Arthur H. Frable, Jr., Moscow, Pa.
Larry Gradwohl, Nazareth, Pa.
George Headley, Jr., Reading, Pa.
Gary Hoffman, Catasauqua, Pa.
Charles E. Kramer, Spring City, Pa.
George F. Lee, Mt. Carmel, Pa.
Robert Minnig, Lancaster, Pa.
Roger Reitz, Shamokin, Pa.
Jonathan D. Reynolds, Thompkinsville, Pa.
Harold F. Snyder, West Nyack, N.Y.
Dana Weller, Aristes, Pa.
Richard Woelkers, Scranton, Pa.
Larry Yerger, Reading, Pa.
Leonard Yerger, Nyack, N. Y.
(Carl C. Cassel, Chairman; James A. Beil, Secretary, Russell T. Allen, William A. Heffner, George E. Herb, Committee).
The report was adopted.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO PUBLISH FELLOWSHIP NEWS: (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
Resolved, That the month of January be designated as subscription month.
Resolved, That a donation of $50.00 each be given by the Board of Foreign Missions, Sunday School Promotion Committee, Board of Church Extension and Board of Directors of Berean Bible School. Checks should be made payable to Fellowship News and sent to the secretary of the committee no later than February 1, 1967.
Resolved, That the committee to Publish Fellowship News prepare a budget to be presented to the next Annual Conference for approval.
The oral reports of the Fellowship News Editor, David E. Thomann, and Business Manager, R. C. Reichenbach were submitted.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS
"Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine. . . ."I Timothy 4:16. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhortwith all longsuffering and doctrine. " II Timothy 4:2.
The Committee on Credentials held two meetings during the year to perform the duties placed upon it by this Annual Conference. The Committee is well aware of its solemn responsibilities and has sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the carrying out of these responsibilities.
The Faith and Order Questionnaire was sent to each of our ministers holding credentials with us. All of the Brethren signed and returned it having answered all the questions in the affirmative. We praise God for this group of ministering Brethren who are true to the Word of God and holy in manner of life.
The Ministerial Candidate Committee recommended T. James Bigley, Bruce A. Ellingson and John H. Herb for ordination. The Credential Committee interviewed these men and approved them for ordination believing them to be men called of God to the Christian ministry. The Committee, therefore, recommends that they be ordained in the Thursday evening meeting of this Annual Conference.
Pastor F.B.Hertzog has communicated with the Committee and requested that he be placed on the roll of retired ministers as of this Annual Conference. We therefore recommend that his request be granted and refer him to the Board of Directors of the Bible Fellowship Church in order that he might be placed on the roll of retired ministers and receive annuities from the Retirement Fund.
Glenn R. Huratiak resigned from the ministry of the Bible Fellowship Church as of June 26, 1966 and is serving with another denomination.
This Committee also wishes to recommend to this Annual Conference that we establish a minimum support of $ 4,200.00 per year for all our pastors.
We have interviewed Donald B. Schaeffer who requests an indefinite leave of absence because of a physical need in his family. We recommend that his request be granted, his credentials be continued and he be listed in the Roll and Directory of Ministers under #3 Ordained Ministers, Retired and on Leave of Absence.
We would further recommend that the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee give him a sum of money to help him relocate and meet this immediate need.
(C. E. Kirkwood, Chairman; W. B. Hottel, Secretary; T. D. Gehret, A. L. Seifert, John H. Riggall, Committee)
Resolved, That Donald B. Schaeffer be granted an indefinite leave of absence, his credentials continued and his name placed on the Roll and Directory of Ministers under #3, "Ordained Ministers, Retired and on leave of Absence."
Resolved, That the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee grant Donald B. Schaeffer a sum of money to help him relocate and meet this immediate need.
Resolved, That the name of F. B. Hertzog be placed on the Roll and directory of Ministers #3, "Ordained Ministers, Retired and on leave of Absence."
Resolved, That the recommendation of the Committee on Credentials regarding the establishment of a minimum support for pastors be assigned to the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee.
Resolved, That T. James Bigley, Bruce A. Ellingson and John Herb be ordained in the Thursday evening meeting of this Annual Conference.
Adjourned at 5:05 p.m. with prayer by Kermit K. Gehman.
Third Meeting
Monday, Evening, October 10, 1966
The meeting was opened with the chorus, "He Keeps Me Singing" and Russell T. Allen led in prayer.
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved.
The following person was elected:
Treasurer of Annual Conference: Paul I. Wentz.
REPORT OF THE ALLENTOWN DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, T. D. GEHRET (See Reports)
REPORT OF THE BETHLEHEM DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, A. L. SEIFERT (See Reports)
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF BEREAN BIBLE SCHOOL, JANSEN E. HARTMAN (See Reports)
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CHURCH EXTENSION WILLIAM A. HEFFNER (See Reports)
The above reports were adopted.
REPORT OF THE MINISTERIAL CONVENTION (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
T. James Bigley, Ron Hoyle and Dr. William Campbell, rnissionaries on furlough, gave brief addresses to the Conference.
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
Resolved, That all Foreign Mission funds be forwarded quarterly to the General Secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions.
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF CHURCH EXTENSION (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
The Pastor of the Denville Church read a tribute of appreciation concerning the Church Extension Director, William A. Heffner, for his untiring ministry. He gave unreservedly of himself to the many needs of the Denville Congregation during the infant stages of their development and particularly during their building program.
Resolved, That Annual Conference grant the petition of Sinking Spring congregation to become a Conference appointment, and further,
Resolved, That this petition be referred to the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee, for the stationing of a pastor.
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BEREAN BIBLE SCHOOL (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
Resolved, That each church be encouraged to support Berean Bible School at a level equal to 4% of its annual offerings, and that this support be remitted to the School in twelve monthly payments. The laymen on the Board of Directors of Berean Bible School shall maintain contact throughout the year with the pastors and official boards of each church, keeping them informed of the work of the school and its needs.
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE HOME (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
Resolved, That Annual Conference grant the Board of Directors of the Home their request to elect the said officers,and be it further
Resolved, That the name "Board of Directors of the Home" be deleted from the Year Book as it now appears on page 9, article 4 paragraph 1 and 2, (1965 Year Book) (First Reading)
Resolved, That the By-Laws governing the Board of Directors of the Home be deleted from the Year Book. (First Reading)
(The above resolutions were adopted by a ballot vote with 72 affirmative and 1 negative vote)
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF MIZPAH GROVE (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF VICTORY VALLEY (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
Resolved, That each church make a contribution to Victory Valley Camp. Checks shall be made payable to Victory Valley Camp and sent to the Secretary of the Board before March 1, 1967.
Adjourned 8:45 p.m. with prayer by Harvey J. Fritz, Jr.
Fourth Meeting
Tuesday Morning, October 11, 1966
The meeting was opened by Harvey J. Fritz, Jr. , directing in the singing of "Praise the Saviour Ye Who Know Him" followed by a vocal solo of Carl C. Cassel entitled, "Children of the Heavenly Father."
Robert Breitegam read scripture and Norman L. Reed led in prayer. The speaker of the morning was Willard E. Cassel who read Psalm 37:23 -25 and brought a helpful message of the Lord guiding the steps of a good man.
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved.
The following were elected:
Credentials Committee: T. D. Gehret, A. L. Seifert, C. E. Kirkwood, John H. Riggall, Frank L. Herb Jr.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE LOCAL CONFERENCE MINUTES
We have examined the Local Conference Records and have found them correct except for a few omissions and minor errors which were corrected by the pastors involved:
The following petitions were found:
Graterford: Resolved, that we petition the 83rd Annual Conference of the Bible Fellowship Church to make the Graterford Bible Fellowship Church a self-supporting church with all the rights and privileges thereof, effective at this conference.
Terre Hill: Whereas, a number of families living in the Ephrata area have been desirous of establishing a Bible Fellowship Church in this community; and,
Whereas, there is now available a beautiful church building and parsonage formerly used by the Nazarene Church at Chestnut Street and Washington Aveuue in the borough of Ephrata, Pennsylvania; and,
Whereas, several families are presently negotiating for the purchase of this property at a cost of $35, 000; and,
Whereas, these families pledge their active support of this ministry publicly, prayerfully and financially; and,
Whereas, this congregation expects by God's enabling to be self-supporting after its first year; therefore,
Resolved: That the Berean Bible Fellowship Church of TerreHill ask the Eighty-third Annual Conference meeting in Grace Bible Fellowship Church, Reading, during October, 1966, to consider our petition and grant the following:
(1) That these members who desire to establish an evangelical witness in the Ephrata community, be considered as a newly formed congregation of the Bible Fellowship Church,
(2) That the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee assign a pastor to this church.
Harleysville: We, the congregation of the Faith Bible Fellowship Church of Harleysville, Pa., petition the 83rd Annual Conference of the Bible Fellowship Church convening on Monday, October 10, 1966 in Reading, Pennsylvania, that this church be recognized as a station, self-supporting, with all the rights and privileges thereof.
Denville: Whereas, God in His sovereign grace and divine providence has raised up the Denville Bible Fellowship Congregation for His glory and praise, and,
Whereas, He has been pleased to quadruple the size of the congregation both in number and financial income, enabling the church to support its pastor at a rate that is well above the minimum established by the Annual Conference, and,
Whereas, it is the desire of the congregation to release the funds which it would receive in Church Extension appropriations in the future so that they maybe used in the establishment of new Bible Fellowship Churches, therefore, be it,
Resolved; that the congregation, at its fourth local Conference, convened in the church, Wednesday evening, September 21, 1966, hereby express its appreciation to its sister churches in the Bible Fellowship Church for their generous and faithful assistance during its nine year history, and, be it further
Resolved, that the congregation of the Denville Bible Fellowship Church petition the 83rd Annual Conference of the Bible Fellowship Church convening at Reading, Pennsylvania, on October 10, 1966, to discontinue forthwith its Church Extension appropriations and admit its duly elected delegate to membership on the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee, and further, to grant the Denville congregation the status of a Station.
(F.B. Hertzog, E.W.Bean, Frank L. Herb, Jr., Leon K. Overpeck, Alva C. Cassel, Harold Shelly, Jr., A. W. Deppe, Harold A. Mann, Walter A. Schlagel, Allan F. Smith, John F. Boyle, Edward A. Stortz, H. Phares Mumbauer, John I. Mengel, Committee).
The report was adopted.
The following were elected:
Committee on Ministerial Candidates: Russell T.Allen, Earl M. Hosler, James A. Beil, Carl C. Cassel, William A. Heffner.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO REVISE STANDING RULES
(First Reading)
Formation - "Resolved, that the Chairman appoint a committee of three to deal with the matter in bringing up to date the Standing Rules which concern the various offerings included in the Conference Budget."
We recommend the following changes in the Standing Rules:
Page 15 - Miscellaneous
* Edelete paragraph
* G delete paragraph
* Pdelete paragraph
* SThe offering for the Home for the Aging shall be paid at the Adjourned Session.
(Robert W. Smock, Willard E. Cassel, Earl M. Hosler, Committee).
Adjourned with prayer by Alva C. Cassel.
Fifth Meeting
Tuesday Afternoon, October 11, 1966
The meeting was opened with prayer by Donald R. Knauer.
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved.
George Dippner and Bright N. Heist, delegates, were introduced to the Conference, and a word of testimony was given by Austin Shelly, missionary to Venezuela.
The following were elected:
General Secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions: Willard E. Cassel.
Board of Foreign Missions: Willard E. Cassel, T. D. Gehret, A.L.Seifert, C. E.Kirkwood, David E. Thomann, James R. Cressman, Kermit K. Gehman, Harold W. Griest, Roy E. Williams.
Resolved, That Annual Conference elect a Committee on Pensions consisting of five laymen, who shall bring recommendations to the Conference concerning the development of our Retirement Program and death benefits.
That the petition of the Graterford Church be granted and be referred to the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee.
Resolved, That we receive the petition of the Terre Hill Congregation and that it be referred to the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee.
Resolved, That the petition of the Harleysville Church be granted and that it be referred to the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee.
Resolved, That we grant the petition of the Denville Church an that it be referred to the Stationing, Boundary and Appropriating Committee.
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BIBLE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIBLE FELLOWSHIP CONFERENCE CENTER (See Reports)
The report was adopted.
The following were elected:
Board of Directors: Jansen E. Hartman, T. D. Gehret, A. L. Seifert, John H. Riggall, Frank L. Herb, Jr., Carl C. Cassel, Paul I. Wentz, Byron C. Cassel, Kermit K. Gehman.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY CHURCH GOVERNMENT HARMONIZATION OF 1963 and 1965 PAPERS
Introduction
Two studies on the Biblical Basis of Church Government have been presented to the Annual Conference. The present committee has been asked to locate the areas of agreement and the areas of disagreement between the two studies:
"Resolved, that the Chairman appoint a committee of six ordained men; three from this committee and three who are advocates of the first committee's viewpoint. This committee of six shall prepare a paper for Annual Conference 1966 in which shall be set forth the areas of agreement. As to any areas of disagreement, both viewpoints shall be set forth in parallel with the Biblical basis for each. " (1965 Yearbook, p. 47)
The problem to which this committee addresses itself is: Upon what principles of church government can we agree and what shall be the form of government of the Bible Fellowship Church.
In seeking to carry out the assignment given by the 1965 Conference, discussion has revealed that some areas which appeared to be areas of disagreement have decreased in size and importance. Throughout these discussions this committee has attempted to make fair judgments based upon the statements in each paper rather than on the basis of the opinion of any of the members of the present or previous committees. Misunderstandings which arose in the previous studies originated from lack of clarity and completeness rather than from diametrically opposed points of view.
Analysis
The committee has analysed the previous studies according to the following outline: (1) areas of agreement, (2) areas of disagreement, (3) questionable areas (in which it is difficult to discern where there is agreement or disagreement), (4) areas of silence in either paper. The details of the analysis are presented in Appendix I. For consistency we have used the terms "particular church" and "lower level" to refer to individual churches and the terms "fellowship of churches" and "upper level" to refer to the denomination.
Harmonization
Believing that we should have a Biblical basis for what we do, we reject a pragmatic approach to Church government as being insufficient. Inquiry in the field of Church history reveals three systems of Church government: rule by elder, rule by congregation and rule by bishop.
Rule by congregation sounds wonderful and democratic giving each believer an equal voice in the government of the church. However all believers are not equally well qualified to enter into decisions in the particular church and on the upper level this position tends to deny the unity of the body and is opposed to denominational structure that is workable and meaningful. It results in fragmentation and lack of subordination. The well documented text Authority and Power in Free Church Tradition, Paul M. Harrison (Princeton University Press, 1959) gives an excellent analysis of the problems of this position in a large denomination.
[Diagram #1 — Rule by Congregation]
Rule by bishop seems to solve some of the problems of rule by congregation, but it creates other problems. The tendency here is to deny the completeness of the particular church as a manifestation of the body of Christ; this results in loss of initiative in the particular church. It tends to separate the clergy and laity; it does not allow the people to have sufficient voice in the life of the church to have a meaningful relationship to the church. The history of the Bible Fellowship Church over the last twenty years has been to give more responsibility and authority to more individuals.
[Diagram #2 — Rule by Bishop]
We believe the Scripture teaches rule by elder and desire to have the system of Church Government taught in the Scripture. It places spiritually mature individuals in positions of responsibility, allows the general membership its proper rights and provides for meaningful relationships between other churches and denominational structures.
[Diagram #3 — Rule by Elder]
We submit the following as support for this system.
A. Lower or Particular Church Level
1. Scripture teaches that Christ is the Head of the Church. The two papers agree on this. Any discussion of Church Government and authority must begin with Christ, the Head. However, to say that Christ is the Head of the Church is to say more than we sometimes realize. It is more than a pious cliche with which we begin and from which we immediately depart. In actuality the whole discussion of Church Government should be controlled by this consideration. For although Christ, the Head, is in Heaven, His church militant is upon earth. Thus the natural question which immediately arises is this: How is the authority resident in Christ, the Head, conveyed to the Church militant, and to whom is this authority conveyed? (See further in Appendix II).
2. Scripture teaches that Christ conveys His authority to men. The two papers agree on this. The Ascended Christ has bestowed and continues to bestow spiritual gifts. It becomes the responsibility of the members of each particular church to recognize the recipients of these gifts and to elect to office those who meet the Scriptural qualifications.
3. Scripture teaches that the recipients of His authority are elder/bishop. The two papers generally agree on this. Thus when Christ exercises His authority in a particular church, He does it through men who re elders in a particular church. It is for this reason that authority is considered as coming from the particular church to the fellowship of churches. The office of elder and bishop is the same: elders always exist in the plural; elders are in charge of particular church affairs; the pastor is an elder among elders.
It can be said that although 1963 explicitly denies any permanent office bearer higher than that of elder, the 1965 paper nowhere explicitly affirms the contrary. In referring to this matter the 1965 paper (p. 42, 1) speaks of apostles as exercising leadership and filling a unique position in the early church. Further on it speaks of the missionary function of the apostles and cites texts which refer to Barnabas and other of the apostles. A word of clarification here might aid in harmonizing the two papers.
That the word "apostle" has a variety of uses - some ordinary and some technical - no one would deny. A full detailed study of the word is beyond the purview of this paper. The New Testament speaks of "Apostles" and "apostles". In as much as the office of Apostle was not a continuing office, the Bible knows of no permanent office bearer higher than that of elder. Among the "Apostles" would be Paul and the twelve. To these men would be given special rights and privileges because they had met special qualifications. Yet by the very nature of the qualifications, the office of "Apostle" had to cease by about the end of the first Christian century. Furthermore, the New Testament makes no reference to provisions for maintaining the prerogatives of this office or transfer of authority. It is for these reasons that we speak of the office of "Apostle" as temporary and speak of no permanent office higher than that of elder. If one wants to use the word "apostle" to refer to missionaries this would not be incorrect. It does, however, lead to misunderstanding and error to cite references to "apostles" and then ascribe to the individuals all the prerogatives, privileges and qualifications of "Apostles.”
The 1963 paper speaks of the distinction within the eldership, basing it upon I Timothy 5:17 where it avers to find teaching and ruling elders. While not claiming different requirements for office - holding that I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 give the qualification for office - the paper does speak of two classifications, two functions within the eldership.
The 1965 paper quotes Philip Schaff (p. 43) to substantiate the claim that all elders are required to be apt to teach. When representatives of the two committees discussed the matter of requirements for office it became evident that 1965 was proceeding on the assumption that 1963 denied the requirement of ability to teach for all elders. When it was understood that this assumption was groundless, it soon became evident that 1963 and 1965 concur in the matter of ability to teach as a requirement for all elders.
4. Scripture teaches that the authority in the particular church is (a) primary, (b) ministerial and declarative, (c)moral and spiritual. On this subject the 1965 paper was not silent even though it did not generally speak as explicitly as did the 1963 paper.
(a) The authority is primary - After discussing the matter, the present committee was led to conclude that each paper speaks of the authority conveyed by Christ, the Head, to elders is direct authority, there are no intermediaries; furthermore, it was led to conclude that it is primary authority, there is no source other than Christ from which it is derived. Thus authority for particular churches does not come from a denomination, confederation or the like, but vice versa. The denomination does not give existence to the particular church but vice versa. Although the 1965 paper (p. 12) says, “ministers from without the local church exercised strong influence over the congregation by way of instruction and rebuke," it cannot be said that this statement and the scripture reference cited (I Cor. 5:9-13) nullifies the claim that each paper speaks of the authority conveyed from Christ to the particular church as be ing direct and primary. This is so because no one would deny that a minister, or an apostle as in the case of I Cor. 5:9-13, might not "exercise strong influence... by way of instruction or rebuke."
(b) The authority is ministerial and declarative. Again we find that the difference between the two papers is not one of contradiction, but that of one paper being explicit on the subject and the other being silent. Perhaps a word of explanation concerning the meaning of these terms would be in order. When one speaks of the authority which Christ conveyed to elders as being ministerial and declarative he means that the task of those exercising this authority is that of ministering - serving as does a minister of His Majesty's government in England - and declaring - making known what He has revealed, not lording or originating. In other words, the task of church rulers is that of ascertaining what Christ, the Head, has said, then declaring it. Putting it in the negative, it is not akin to writing or revising a constitution for a stamp club or some voluntary organization. In the sense used above, the church is NOT a voluntary society. It is the body of which Christ is the Head and in which He exercises His Lordship. This fact when kept in mind will place limitations upon the best intentions of men, particular churches and fellowships of churches.
(c) The nature of authority in the particular church is moral and spiritual rather than legal and juridical. The church of which Christ is Head and in which elders exercise ministerial and declarative authority has no army, police force or deputy sheriffs. This does not mean it has no authority nor that the authority it has is not real authority. It does mean that because it is a spiritual entity its authority is of a different nature than that of the state. (for further evidence see material Upper level, Sec. 4, b)
5. Scripture teaches that each particular church is autonomous , but not independent. Having said that Christ is Head of the church and exercises His authority through elders who minister and declare, and that ecclesiastical authority is moral and spiritual with no legal or juridical power, one may wonder about the extent of particular church authority. In referring to the particular church it can be said that the authority conveyed to it is general in that it is not limited as is the authority of major assemblies. Since it comes from Christ to elders of a particular church there is a real sense in which each particular church can be referred to as autonomous. But saying that each particular church is autonomous is not saying that each particular church is independent, nor is it it saying all that need be said on the subject. For just as one enters the kingdom of God voluntarily and personally, not by infant baptism nor the consent of his parents, yet when once he enters he is not to
live in isolation from his brethren nor be a law unto himself; just so a church, although possessing all that is necessary to its life and government, is not to exist in isolation nor be a law unto itself. Just as a believer submits himself to his brethren in the Lord and receives from them that which is conducive to his perfection and in turn contributes something to the body to which he belongs, just so a particular church submits itself to the fellowship of churches and receives from it and contributes to it for the upbuilding of the whole.
The Annual Conference exists for the well being of the churches. The local assembly of elders exist for the very being of the church; should the Annual Conference cease to function due to unusual circumstances, the churches would still exist. The particular churches have an existence apart from the Annual Conference, whereas the Annual Conference exists by virture of the particular churches.
Does Annual Conference have authority over the particular churches? The authority of Annual Conference is derived, limited, smaller in measure and ministering. Yet this authority is not mere advice. Because the church is a spiritual entity and because there is mutual subordination on the part of the particular churches, it is not wrong to speak of the authority of Annual Conference over the particular churches. One should bear in mind that the authority of Annual Conference is limited to those things pertaining to the churches in general, those things relegated to it by the FAITH and ORDER or those things for which the particular churches make request.
B.Upper or Fellowship-wide Level
1. The Scripture teaches that churches should organize into a fellowship of churches. The two papers agree on this. They agree that this should be more than an association; there should be organizational structure to this fellowship. Two of the problems which we must guard against as we seek to serve God in our generation are (1) Independency and (2) Ecumenicalism. A proper understanding of the Biblical materials concerning fellowship of churches will help us take a clear stand on both of these problems. On the one hand, Independent Churches have taken the Biblical
material concerning the God-given ability of each church to govern itself and have pressed it to imply that any organizational relationships between churches is nonbiblical. On the other hand, horrified by the fragmentation of the church, some who see the evidence for the unity of the church have become champions of the Ecumenical Movement. The scripture does teach that there is only one church, but the advocates of the ecumenical movement have led people to believe that unity must be more important than truth. They say. Unity at any cost, but unity.
Although we do not seek to equate the Independent Movement and the Ecumenical Movement as being equally wrong, we do believe that each group distorts some aspect(s) of Biblical truth. Scripture does give basis for a fellowship of churches which includes an emphasis on the ability of churches to govern themselves and one true unity of the church.
2. The Scripture teaches that the direct or participating membership of the fellowship of churches shall be elders from the participating churches. There was disagreement between the two papers at this point. The 1963 paper indicates that only elders from particular churches shall be members of the fellowship-wide level of operation (pp. 55-57); the 1965 paper indicates that all members of the church or at least some of the members (in contra-distinction from elders) of the church should be part of the fellowship-wide level of operation (p. 4 1, sec. E).
In reviewing the basis for the claims made in the 1965 paper, a problem appears in the text of the verses cited. The paper indicates that the "brethren" participated in the decision and publication of the decision; but the best text indicates that this is not the sense. The ASV translates it: ". . the apostles, and the elders, brethren .. . " (Acts 15:23) thereby making the word "brethren" refer to the "apostles and elders, " The "and" between "elders and brethren" which the KJV includes to make a series of three is not in the best manuscripts. The phrase "with the whole church" in 15:22 does not fully support the idea of the entire congregation participating in the decision, but rather indicates that the whole congregation agreed with the decision. The basis for this interpretation is 16:4 where the narrative says that Paul and Silas delivered the decree that was "ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem." Thus the elders from the various churches properly chosen and recognized become the members of the decision-making body of the fellowship of churches.
3. The Scripture teaches that the binding force in such a fellowship of churches is the mutual conviction of the truth of the Biblical doctrines agreed upon by the fellowship of churches. The 1965 paper states this conviction; the 1963 paper does not state it, but it does recognize the need for this kind of unifying force. Both papers agree that we need a firm basis for our work together. Because each believer and each church must answer to God for its response to His revelation in the Bible, therefore our mutual understanding of God's revelation is the binding force in our union. Those believers who are convinced of the same body of teaching from Scripture form a particular church; those churches which hold the same teachings are brought into closer fellowship with one another than with any other group of churches forming a fellowship of churches. Thus our conviction concerning our mutual beliefs is the basis of our union as the Lord manifests Himself to us and among us. We are not bound together simply by the fact that we were basically begun by the same group of men; we are not bound together simply by the "trust clause" in the titles to our properties; we are not bound together simply by the fact that separation is difficult. If these things are not so (and we believe they are not), then we declare ourselves bound together by our mutual understanding of the Word of God under the guidance of the Spirit of God.
4. The Scripture teaches that the authority in a fellowship of churches (a) originates in Christ, (b) is spiritual in its nature, (c) progresses by mutual subordination and (d) is limited.
(a) The origin of authority in a fellowship of churches is Christ, the Head. Both papers say that the only source of authority in the fellowship of churches is Christ or the Holy Spirit. On p. 4 1, sec. E, the 1965 paper is emphasizing the fact that the Jerusalem Council had real authority. The churches recognized the Council's authority because the Holy Spirit directed. Because the nature of the church is spiritual, the only authority in the church must be spiritual. Christ is the only head of the church whether composed as particular churches or as a fellowship of churches.
(b) The nature of the authority in a fellowship of churches is moral and spiritual. The 1963 paper speaks concerning the nature of authority in the church. (pp. 52 -56). The 1965 paper does not deal with this area explicitly; on p.41, sec. E it says that the authority is real because it is Spirit directed. This implies that authority in the church is spiritual; therefore men are morally obligated to obey it.
The authority in the church is moral and spiritual because the church is a spiritual entity. To say anything other than this would be as if one would speak of a creature with a human body and the non-material nature of a lion. The two just do not fit together. The moral and spiritual nature of the authority of the church applies to the particular church as well as to the fellowship-wide level. Be cause more time was spent discussing the nature of authority on the fellowship-wide level in the 1963 paper, an erroneous impression may have been given that the moral and spiritual authority of the fellowship-wide level was less demanding than the kind of authority on the particular-church level. Actually, however, authority in the church is always and everywhere moral and spiritual because the church is spiritual; on the particular church level not only on the fellowship-wide level.
To speak of authority as being moral and spiritual is to comment on its nature. It is not commenting upon how demanding it is. But because it is moral and spiritual, it is actually more demanding than legal or juridical authority. Submission to moral and spiritual authority demands inner submission as well as outward conformity. Outward conformity alone may satisfy legal or juridical rule. But with the church of Christ it is quite different. He judges inner or spiritual judgment rather than outward or legal judgment. This is true in every aspect of the church - on the particular church level as well as the fellowship-wide level.
(c) The authority in the fellowship of churches moves (progresses) by mutual subordination. The 1963 paper speaks of this (pp.56-57); this area is not discussed by the 1965 paper. Some may think it dangerous to state that each church is invested by the Lord with sufficient authority to govern herself in every aspect of her life. To state this in other terms is to state that each church is autonomous. However the danger is removed when these churches realize that their fellowship is to be one in which each particular church voluntarily subordinates herself to each of the other churches and to the fellowship of churches. This is necessary if each church takes seriously the fact that it is not the complete body of Christ. Other equally Christ-possessed churches exist. As soon as there are two or more equally Christ-possessed churches, their relationship must be defined. Size, age, loudness of voice, financial contributions are of little importance. Christ, the Head, indicates that each part of His body is to be voluntarily and inwardly subordinate to Himself and to all other parts of His body. The particular churches are a part of the fellowship because they desire to be; and, therefore, they surrender their autonomy to the group as a whole. They are bound to obey the decisions of the group by the same strength of concern that makes them a part of the group.
Three alternatives present themselves in particular churches relating themselves to one another. First, each may be organizationally independent of all others. We have already seen that this violates the Biblical information concerning the unity of the body of Christ. Each church is not a law to itself but must evidence its relationship to other churches. Second, each church may be simply a segment of the larger body rather than a body capable of self-government. This view makes the fellowship the church rather than allowing the particular church to be the church. It appears to violate the Biblical emphasis on self-government. Third, each church may govern herself (to be autonomous) and yet recognize her responsibility to subordinate herself to sister churches and to the group of churches. Although this view is not beyond the possibility of abuse, it alone recognizes the Biblical emphasis on self-government of each church and the unity of the body of Christ.
(d) The authority of a fellowship of churches is limited for two reasons: (1) Its authority is limited because it is secondary and derived rather than primary and original. This limitation is peculiar to the upper, or fellowship-wide level of the church. The 1963 paper teaches this. The 1965 paper does not deal with this material. The New Testament teaches that the particular church is invested by the Head of the church with authority to govern her self in every area of her life; therefore, the authority of the particular church is primary and original. Therefore, the authority of the fellowship of churches must be secondary and derived. The other side is also clear: The New Testament teaches that the fellowship of churches is dependent upon the particular churches rather than the particular churches being dependent upon the fellowship of churches. The flow of authority is from Christ, the Head, to the particular church and from the particular church to the fellowship of churches. This means that the authority of a fellowship of churches is limited (a) to matters that pertain to the churches in fellowship or (b) to matters which the particular churches have agreed to take care of together.
Problems arise only when the decisions of the fellowship and the desires of the particular church come into conflict. The usual solution to such problems should be that the particular church should accept the decision of the fellowship because the larger group should be more objective in discerning the mind of the Lord. Because the particular church is invested by the Lord with the right to govern itself, some might think that it has a right to do as it pleases; but because the particular church is also made a part of the fellowship by the Lord, it should be bound by the decisions of the fellowship. This relationship is expressed by saying that each church is autonomous (having the right to govern itself) in contrast to saying that each church is independent (having the right to do as it pleases). If this approach does not result in mutual understanding between the particular church and the fellowship, both must give full opportunity for reconsideration, restudy and recourse based on Biblical teaching. The moral and spiritual nature of our anion demands this. Although it is possible that a member might, as a final resort, desire to withdraw from the group, such action could not be considered without having previously exhausted all possible means of reconciliation. The moral and spiritual nature of the union in a fellowship of churches is based on their mutual understanding of the teaching of Scripture; therefore, withdrawal could never be considered except on the basis of difference in understanding the Scripture.
(2) Its authority is limited because it is ministerial and declarative rather than self-derived or self-originated; this limitation is true for the entire church - upper and lower level. One of the basic reasons for this is that the church is Christ's, not man's. This means that men cannot properly decide how the church shall be formed or ruled; only Christ can do this. Men are charged with the responsibility of leadership in the church, but these men must be spiritually qualified elders because their authority is ministerial and declarative rather than inherent and originating in them selves. The elders do not, in and of themselves, rule the church by rules and principles they have devised out of their own heads or hearts. The elders rule the church as under shepherds at the direction of Christ, the Head, according to rules and principles which He has given in the Scripture. Because spiritual things are spiritually discerned, these men must have the qualifications outlined by Paul in I Timothy 3, etc. As such they serve Christ (their authority is ministerial) and the church by declaring Christ's will (their authority is declarative).
5. The Scripture teaches that the particular church has the right and responsibility to govern itself. Scripture is silent, however, concerning permanent fellowship-wide offices. This implies that the fellowship-wide level shall have offices that are in keeping with the God-given responsibilities of the particular church. These offices must be carefully defined. The papers may disagree concerning the necessity for and authority of officers on the fellowship-wide level. The 1963 paper says that there is no higher permanent office than that of elder recognized in the New Testament (pp 58. 59). "Permanent" is used in that paper to distinguish apostles from other church leaders; Apostles had higher authority than elders, but by definition the office as such did not continue in the church after the first century. (See page 5, this paper - "Apostle, apostle") The 1965 paper (p. 46 sec. 4) says that churches in fellowship shall be responsible for selection of denominational officers. This indicates simply that denominational officers are necessary.
This may or may not be an area of disagreement. It will be an area of agreement if the offices are defined in such away that the elders are still the highest permanent officers in the church. If the delineation of the offices on the level of the fellowship of churches creates a gradation of clergy or looks in that direction, there is disagreement.
In seeking to interpret the actions of the Annual Conference on this part of our problem an interesting pattern has developed. As late at 1951 the duties of the District Superintendent included a statement such as: "He has the superintendence of the work of all the societies within the bounds of his district." This no longer is present, and the conference for several years has been less than eager to examine the office of District Superintendent and define his duties. In addition to this we notice a trend that began in 1941 and has continued to the present. At that time items of business began to be taken to the Board of Directors (Executive Board) which never had been taken there before. Previously the Presiding Elders made these decisions by themselves. In 1945 we limited the time one might serve in the office of District Superintendent. In 1958 we gave each church and pastor the opportunity to express his desire regarding pulpit supply; previously stationing was done largely by the District Superintendent. In 1960 we established the Ministerial Candidate Committee and the Credentials Committee. These committees now take care of the work of enlisting, training and supervising the men who have ordination credentials with our denomination; previously the District Superintendent did this. In 1962 we established the Board of Mizpah Grove for the supervision of the summer camp meeting program; this work was previously done by the District Superintendent. Each of these actions came only after a two-thirds vote of the conference at two succeeding annual sessions. Our voting record during the last 25 years indicates a desire to limit the authority of the office of District Superintendent in our fellowship.
AREA OF DISAGREEMENT
1963
The question of who is authorized to exercise discipline is answered differently in the two papers - 1963 refers the authority to elders, 1965 refers it to the congregation (I Cor. 5) The scripture cited by 1965 is that of Matthew 18:15-18. (The 1963 paper does not cite specific references). It would be in order to turn to these references and see what can be learned.
The words "tell it to the church" (in Matthew 18:15-18) admittedly can be construed to mean "tell it to the congregation.” That this is a possible interpretation can hardly be denied. However, to say that it is the only interpretation is hardly accurate and does not do justice to other scripture references. We all subscribe to the tenet that scripture best interprets scripture, and that which may seem a valid interpretation when isolated is rendered invalid when other relevant passages are allowed to speak.
When we turn to scripture to ascertain how the word "church" is used we soon discover that the seemingly obvious meaning of "tell it to the congregation" is not so obvious. Note, for instance, Ephesians 5:25 “. . . Christ. . . loved the church and gave himself up for it. . .” That the word "church" is not to be interpreted to mean "congregation" here is obvious. Furthermore, when we speak of the ”powers of the state" we often mean those individuals within the state authorized to act. So also in the church. Thus to make Matthew 18:15-18 mean "tell it to the congregation" may not be the only valid interpretation.
Reflecting further upon Biblical usage, we might recall that the Bible can attribute to an individual what is done by representatives (cf. II Chron.7:5). With this in mind, and also the many biblical references to elders ruling (I Tim. 5 - 17), taking responsibility (Acts 20:28-31 ) and not lording it over the flock (I Peter 5:2), one would expect a task as difficult and demanding as discipline to be exercised by those responsible for ruling. Furthermore, the authority possessed by the Church is authority conveyed to it by Christ and exercised for Him by elders. Hence it would be unusual, unless clearly commanded elsewhere, to expect disciplinary action to be exercised by any other than those normally ruling in Christ's behalf. In the face of no evidence to the contrary, we conclude that Matthew 18:15-18 is no exception to the rule that elders rule.
Because of the nature of church discipline especially excommunication, the entire congregation must enter in to the execution of the discipline or it is meaningless. What is the value of excommunicating a member formally if the other members continue to treat him as a brother. This fact gives the basis for the statements of Scripture that appear to involve the congregation in discipline.
1965
The impression was given in 1965 that the congregation initiated discipline. This is an overstatement of the case in that the intent of the 1965 paper was rather that the congregation must concur in the act of discipline before it can be final.
The initiatory action of discipline must originate from the Elders since discipline is an act of rule, but the Bible in both injunction and practice: teaches final ratification of the action is enacted by the local church. The passage in I Cor. 5:4-5 clearly indicates that the man who was living in fornication was to be delivered to Satan by those who were gathered together. (I Cor. 1:2)
The writers of Scripture which speak of discipline in no case address the officers of the Church nor instruct them that it is their sole authority and duty to carry out final excommunication. Rather in each case the Church is directed to finalize this action. (Matt. 18:17; I Cor. 5:4; II Cor.2:6) II Cor.2:6 illustrated that "the many" (A.S.V.) were involved in the discipline of the man who lived in fornication. Vincent concurs when he says "the many" is "the majority of the Church.”
John Owen in his book, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, pp. 113-114, expresses some practical reasons why the whole church must ratify the action taken by the Elders:
This excommunication, as we have proved before, is an act of church-authority exerted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; and if so, then it is an act of the officers of the church... for there is no authority in the church, properly so called, but what resides in the officers of it... And there are two reasons which prove that the power of excommunication, as to the authoritative exercise of it, is in the elders of the church: -
(a) Because the apostles, by virtue of their office-power in every church, did join in the authoritative excommunication, as is plain in the case insisted on, I Cor. 5; and there is no office -power now remaining but what is in the elders of the church.
(b) It is an act of rule; but all rule, properly so-called, is in the hands of rulers only. We may add hereunto, that the care of the preservation of the church is its purity, of the vindication of its honour, of the edification of all its members, of the correction and salvation of offenders, is principally incumbent on them, or committed unto them, as we have declared....
Howbeit, it cannot be denied but that the interest, yea the power of the whole church, in the fraternity of it, is greatly to be considered herein; for indeed wherever the apostle treats of it, he doth not anywhere recommend it unto the officers of the church in a peculiar manner, but unto the whole church or the brethren therein.... Wherefore the whole church is concerned herein, both in point of duty, interest, and power:-
(1) In point of duty; for by virtue of mutual watch of all the members of the church over each other, and of the care incumbent upon everyone of them, for the good, the honour, the reputation, and the edification of the whole, it is their duty, jointly and severally, to endeavor the purging out from among them of every thing that is contrary to these ends.
(11) In interest they have also a concernment therein. They are to look that no root of bitterness spring up among them, lest themselves be at length defiled thereby....
(111) In point of power; for the execution of this sentence is committed unto and rests in the body of the church. According as they concur and practice, so it is put in execution or suspended; for it is they who must withdraw communion from them, or the sentence is of no validity. This punishment must be inflicted by the "many"; who are also to restore him who is rebuked: Wherefore, excommunication without the consent of the church is a mere nullity.
As a result the Eldership is limited in the area of final excommunication thus sharing with the local church final disciplinary action. (See page 44, #4 and page 46, par. 1 and 2.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
I. WE RECOMMEND THAT A COMMITTEE OF