Churches of God - Chapter 9 - Ministry and Oversight

In the “Daily Meditations” of that rare saint and scholar, George Bowen, of Bombay, are the following reflections for October 8: 

“Let all things be done unto edifying” (1 Cor. 14:26). 

On successive Sabbaths, having a definite object in view, we visit various churches. We sit down with the people of God of a certain denomination, hear the sermon that is preached, and observe the worship that is rendered to God. Again, we worship with those of another denomination. We notice many points of difference in their mode of celebrating divine worship and seeking their own edification; but at length we come to a worshipping body whose customs are so fundamentally different from those of the churches previously visited that the differences among the latter appear to be quite trifling in comparison. In the church that we have now stumbled upon in an out-of-the-way place (in the Epistle to the Corinthians) instead of one man officiating for all, while all sit silent save when they sing or make common responses, and where everything is arranged to exclude as much as possible anything like spontaneousness, we find that when the members come together, “everyone hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.” One, two, or three speak in an unknown tongue; and another interprets. Prophets speak, two or three in succession. If anything is revealed to another that sitteth by, the first holds his tongue. May we not learn from this that the Holy Ghost loves a larger liberty than is accorded by our arrangements? We cleave to them as though they had been imposed by the solemn and unalterable decree of the Great Head of the church: and a proposition to depart from them is regarded almost as treason against Christ. It is singular, however, that the apostolic church should be completely defunct to us, as regards the force of its example in these matters. There were some great abuses in those early churches; think you they were the greatest conceivable abuses? Is it not possible that the apostle Paul, coming into one of our staid and orderly churches, would look upon the whole of the decorous and tasteful service as one unmitigated abuse? He would, perhaps, say, Is the Holy Ghost dead, that you make no provision for his manifestation? Is there no communion of the saints in the assemblies of the saints? 

“Let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discriminate. But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted” (1 Cor. 14:29–31). 

The picture here given of ministry in an apostolic gathering excludes the presiding officer of whom we have read as arising in the second century. It shows (1) that in the church there were several persons known to have been chosen by the Holy Spirit for the ministry of the word of God; (2) that each and all of these had power and right delegated from the Lord to address the assembly; (3) that the control of their utterance was (a) by the Holy Spirit direct, who, while one was speaking, might give to another a message for the assembly; (b) by the prophet himself, who retained control of his own spirit, even though energized by the Holy Spirit, and could resume silence. 

The control of the assembly by one man was thus unknown. The Lord Himself, by His Spirit, was as really present as if He had been visible. Indeed, to faith He was visible; and He Himself being there, what servant could be so irreverent as to take out of His hands the control of the worship and ministry? 

But, on the other hand, most certainly it was not the case that anybody had liberty to minister. The liberty was for the Holy Spirit to do His will, not for His people to do as they willed. The notion that every believer had an equal right to speak was not allowed. Everyone who was chosen, qualified, and moved thereto by the Lord the Spirit had the right, and no one else had any right. All rights in the house of God vest solely in the Son of God. 

The post-apostolic church quickly departed from this pattern. It has been seen and adopted only occasionally throughout the centuries, notably in seasons of powerful revival. A hundred and thirty years ago it was rediscovered by the first Brethren, followed for a while with almost apostolic blessedness, and has been, and is being, very considerably forsaken, with great spiritual loss. 

The spiritual energy which accompanied Brethren in their first years is little appreciated today. Robert Govett deemed it the mightiest movement of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, while the writer of the article “Plymouth Brethren” in Blackie’s Popular Encyclopaedia says that it “seemed at first to be a movement great enough to threaten the whole organization of the Christian church.” In the light of Holy Scripture we may with profit study their experience as a practical and modern example, both of encouragement and warning. 

Dr. S. P. Tregelles has left precise first-hand information as to the original practice of Brethren in several localities, including Plymouth (the first such assembly in England), Exeter, Bath and London. He united with the Plymouth assembly as early as 1835. In 1849 he wrote: 

“Stated ministry, but not exclusive ministry,” has been the principle on which we have acted all along here. . . . By “stated ministry” we mean that such and such persons are looked on as teachers, and one or more of them is expected to minister, and they are responsible for stirring up the gift that is in them; but this is not “exclusive ministry,” because there is an open door for others who may from time to time receive any gift, so that they too may exercise their gifts. 

This was then the principle acted on in Plymouth before there was any other gathering for communion in England. . . . When such meetings did arise in other places, there was no thought, at least for several years, of setting up liberty of ministry in the sense of unrestrainedness. Liberty of Ministry. . . was intended to signify that all who were fitted by the Holy Ghost might minister; it was as needful for such to shew that they had fitness, as it was for those who wished for fellowship to exhibit to their brethren that they were really taking the stand of Believers in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Tregelles continues: 

I am well aware that some years ago there were introduced in London very democratic views of ministry—utterly subversive of all godly order, utterly opposed to subjection to the Lordship of Christ, and contradictory to all Scriptural doctrine of the gifts of the Spirit bestowed on individuals. . . when these democratic views were circulated he (Mr. G. V. Wigram) published a tract (in 1844, I believe), of four pages, entitled, “On Ministry in the Word.” I extract two of the questions and answers: 

“E.—Do you admit “a regular ministry”? 

“W.—If by a regular ministry you mean a stated ministry (that is, that in every assembly those who are gifted of God to speak to edification will be both limited in number and known to the rest), I do admit it; but if by a regular ministry you mean an exclusive ministry, I dissent. By an exclusive ministry, I mean the recognizing certain persons as so exclusively holding the place of teachers, as that the use of a real gift by anyone else would be irregular. As, for instance, in the Church of England and in most dissenting Chapels, a sermon would be felt to be irregular which had been made up by two or three persons really gifted by the Holy Ghost. 

“E.—On what do you build this distinction? 

“W.—From Acts 13:1, I see that at Antioch there were but five whom the Holy Ghost recognised as teachers—Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul. Doubtless, at all the meetings it was only these five, one or more of them, as it pleased the Holy Ghost, who were expected by the saints to speak. This was a stated ministry. But it was not an exclusive ministry; for when Judas and Silas came (15:32), they were pleased to take their places among the others, and then the recognised teachers were more numerous.” 

These statements [adds Dr. TregellesJ are sufficiently explicit. 

Of late there has been considerable departure amongst Brethren from these principles. The democratic idea that everyone has equal right to minister, which is departure in one direction, has necessarily given opportunity for unedifying speaking. Well merited is Spurgeon’s keen comment, that where the whole is mouth the result is vacuum. This, in turn, had led to departure in the opposite direction by a form of control of ministry which directly conforms gatherings to the very conditions around from which the early Brethren broke away to return to the spiritual, apostolic pattern. 

As yet, happily, meetings for worship or for prayer continue in form to be apostolic, but other gatherings pass increasingly under human control. More and more conferences adopt a closed platform, with a chairman in control and ministry restricted to selected speakers. Sometimes these speakers are left free among themselves as to ministering; at other places their order is settled. At one important annual conference the chairman announced explicitly that the brethren on the platform had been selected by the conveners, and that no one else would be allowed to express himself under any circumstances, and this was enforced by the suppression by the chairman of any others who commenced to speak. This example at an important centre greatly accelerated this course elsewhere. 

Let this be considered narrowly. A statement by a Christian to the brethren is declared to be a statement to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3): thus the announcement before us is really, however unintended, an intimation to the Holy Spirit that under no circumstances is He at liberty to use any other of His servants to edify the assembly than those the conveners have selected. And this is tacitly the situation created by every closed platform. 

A certain measure of unpleasing and unedifying talking is, no doubt, prevented by such measures, though selected speakers also may be tedious and unprofitable; and a certain superior style of speech can, no doubt, be generally secured which, in itself, is good, but the psychical effect of which is easily mistaken for spiritual unction. Sixty-five years’ constant experience has satisfied me that, on the whole the spiritual profit of gatherings is distinctly less than in former days. 

I remember a large missionary conference at which the late Mr. E. S. Bowden gave a most powerful, soul-exercising account of the days of revival in India. The whole audience was bowed before God, and had the Lord been free to hold His people under the influence of that moment, had the assembly been allowed to wait upon God, there was every likelihood of an unusual and blessed visitation of the Spirit. But the chairman had a programme! The golden moment was spoiled; the meetings sank again to the ordinary. 

If a meeting or meetings be arranged avowedly for ministry by an announced person or persons, well and good, though the rights of the Holy Spirit should always be acknowledged, and there should be liberty for Him to use any servant He pleases. With this proviso I would see nothing unscriptural in one and the same qualified brother holding preaching and teaching meetings all the year round in the same hall. That general meetings of Christians were held in that building would not affect the principle. These latter should be under the sole leading of the Holy Spirit, as should be every such assembling of saints; those former might rightly be in the hands of one competent minister of the Word. In Acts 19:9 we see a church gathered by Paul at Ephesus. In that church were the apostle (so long as he stayed in the city), prophets, pastors and teachers, and other saints, every joint, privately or publicly, supplying something to the growth, strength, usefulness of the body (Eph. 4). Here, in the assembly, is the liberty of the Spirit. But, in addition, Paul, as an evangelist and teacher, had a regular place of his own for ministry, “he reasoned daily in the school of Tyrannus.” From the immediate connexion of the words, “he separated the disciples, reasoning daily, etc.,” it looks as if that school was the meeting place of the church at that time, which suggests the dual picture I have now presented. Yet even so, I take for granted that if, while Paul was speaking, another spiritual person had received a revelation the apostle would have conformed to his own regulation, “if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first (speaker) hold his peace” (1 Cor. 14:30). 

But what is sorrowful is the solemnly significant feature that gatherings formerly convened for waiting upon God, that His Spirit should lead and should supply ministry, steadily change from this apostolic type to the prevailing human arrangements, and that new conferences tend from their beginning to adopt the lower method. The departure is symptomatic of spiritual decay, and is already promoting further deterioration of the body corporate by hindering soul exercise as to ministry, and therefore the development of fresh ministers of the Word. 

Now that the closed platform, with selected speakers, chairman, and programme, has become the regular method of conferences, how shall the rearing of thousands of young people in this method aid the churches of the next generation to depend upon the presence, government, and leading of the Holy Spirit, confessedly the apostolic plan? Referring to 1 Cor. 14:29-30 (which shows how primitive assemblies were ordered), Dr. Rendle Short well said to a large gathering of Sunday School teachers and workers in November, 1924: 

We spoil God’s workings, and we starve our souls, if we depart from this principle. 

Someone may say, “But will not things get into dreadful confusion if you seek to follow out these practices? In those days they had the Holy Spirit to guide them, and shall not we go wildly astray, and have dull, confused, unprofitable, perhaps even unseemly meetings, unless we get someone to take charge?” 

Is not that practically a denial of the Holy Spirit? Do we dare deny that the Holy Spirit is still being given? The Holy Spirit is at work today as much as He was at work in those days, and we may all join in that creed of all the Churches: “I believe in the Holy Ghost.” 

Please do not think that what is sometimes called the “open meeting” means that the saints are at the mercy of any unprofitable talker who thinks he has something to say, and would like to inflict himself upon them. The open meeting is not a meeting that is open to man. It is a meeting that is open to the Holy Spirit. There are some whose mouths must be stopped. Sometimes they may be stopped by prayer, and sometimes they have to be stopped by the godly admonition of those whom God has set over the assembly. But because there is failure in carrying out the principle, do not let us give up the principles of God. 

I very gladly quote this re-affirmation of primitive principles, and earnestly invite all conference conveners and speakers courageously and dutifully to re-adopt the practice of the same, with faith in the Spirit of God, giving heed to the above closing exhortation I have italicized. 

The divine method just indicated of dealing with unprofitable talking is effective, without departure from the vital principle of the Lord directly prompting ministry. Paul instructed Titus that the mouths of certain teachers “must be stopped” (Tit. 1:10-14). The word is strong, and means to put on a bridle or muzzle, which was to be effected by “reproving them sharply”; no doubt privately when possible, but publicly if necessary, and always graciously. In the first days of Brethren this was practised. Tregelles says: 

Liberty of ministry was recognized amongst those who possessed ability from God; but it was considered that ministry which was not to profit—which did not commend itself to the consciences of others—ought to be repressed. 

And this was the sense in which the phrase “liberty of ministry” was used. . . . On one occasion Mr. Newton had in the assembly to stop ministry which was manifestly improper, with Mr. J. N. Darby’s and Mr. G. V. Wigram’s presence and full concurrence: a plain proof that they then fully objected to unrestrained ministry. . . there was restraint, not upon edifying teaching, but upon that which was unedifying; advice and exhortation in private were generally resorted to, but when needful the case was met in a more public manner. . . . I have had pretty much acquaintance with several localities, and I may specify Exeter and London as places in which it was believed to be right to judge whether ministry was to edification, and to put a stop to that which was considered to be not so. In London this was done repeatedly—far oftener to my knowledge, than ever in Plymouth.

One who was present told me that, long years ago, at Salem Chapel, Bristol, an untrained brother announced he would read two chapters; but upon his early making mistakes in reading, George Müller interposed with: “Dear Brother, as it is very important that the Word of God should be read correctly, I will read these chapters for you.” And he did so. 

I well remember, at a large conference, a good man so mishandled a certain text that the whole assembly was quickly restive. After perhaps ten minutes, W. H. Bennet rose and said, sweetly but decidedly, “Beloved Brother, I think it is the general feeling of the meeting that you have said enough upon this subject.” The speaker at once desisted. 

But so delicate, invidious a duty requires for its discharge men of spiritual wisdom, weight, authority, men to whom, because the unction of the Holy One is upon them, others bow. It is simpler, though unspiritual and worldly, to resort to the pre-arranged platform; but let us clearly understand that not even the germ of it is in the New Testament: it is a departure from the apostolic method; and from the ways of the early Brethren; and every departure leads towards a barren “far country.” 

This directs our thoughts to another departure. In each apostolic church there were elders, men qualified for ruling and caring for the house of God. Who they were in each church was known. They were set in office (tithemi) by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28); sometimes appointed by those who were used of God to found the local church in question (Acts 14:23); sometimes only recommended to the church without formal appointment (1 Cor. 16:15-16; 1 Thess. 5:12-13): sometimes appointed by one sent by Paul for the purpose. But there they were, known and acknowledged, with duty, right and power to rule the house of God for its well-being and for His praise therein. 

At the very first Brethren followed this pattern. 

At Plymouth (says Dr. Tregelles), Mr. J. N. Darby requested Mr. Newton to sit where he could conveniently take the oversight of ministry, and that he would hinder that which was manifestly unprofitable and unedifying. Mr. J. N. Darby addressed Mr. Newton by letter, as an Elder: I have seen a transcript of such a document made (apparently for circulation here) in the handwriting of Mr. G. V. Wigram; it was written by Mr. J. N. Darby, from Dublin, and it is addressed to B. Newton, Esq., Elder of the Saints’ Meeting in Raleigh Street, Plymouth (Three Letters, 7, note). 

But after fifteen or so years, by 1845, “Darby had taken up very strong views against the formal recognition of elders.” It was in that year he found himself frustrated by the elders of the Plymouth assembly in his desire to prosecute his war against Newton within that assembly. This at once suggests one of the chief reasons for having “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23): they are a garrison to keep out disturbers. Such an arrangement, had it existed everywhere, would have largely thwarted Darby’s measures of universal domination of the Brethren assemblies and universal excommunication. Here is seen the wisdom of the divine arrangement and the folly of departing therefrom. 

The grounds alleged for this disastrous departure were two. First, a theory that the church is so utterly in ruins that restoration of its original order is quite impossible. Darby and Newton came to agree about this at least, and their combined influence gave to the phrase “a day of ruin” a sanction amongst Brethren scarcely less than that of Scripture itself. 

But what is in ruins? The invisible church, composed of all Spirit-baptized persons, is indefectible, it cannot be ruined; against it “the gates of Hades shall not prevail.” The local assembly may indeed be sadly ruined; but it can be restored, as, by the grace of God, has been seen times without number—at Corinth, for example. The only other institution in question is that agglomeration of sects which is called Christendom. But that is unrecognized by the New Testament, is not of God at all, and that it is in ruins is no matter for regret. Hence this specious phrase does but cover a very misleading fallacy. Again it was the undefined notion of something universally visible that allowed of the theory that that something was irreparably ruined as to external form. The only visible body known to the New Testament, the local church, can be maintained, by the grace of the Holy Spirit. 

Upon this vital matter Anthony Norris Groves in 1847 wrote the following decisive sentences, which fix the issue precisely: 

Of this I think I can now feel practically convinced (as I ever have in theory) that recognised pastors and teachers are essential to the good order of all assemblies; and as such are required and commanded of God; and though I should not object to unite with those who had them not, if it were the result of the Lord’s providence in not giving them any, I should feel quite unable to join personally those who rejected them as unnecessary or unscriptural. If the question were put to me (as it often has been), do you consider the Spirit unequal to the task of keeping order in the way we desire to follow? my reply is simply this: Show me that the Lord has promised His Spirit to this end, and I at once admit its obligation in the face of all practical and experienced difficulties: but if I see pastorship, eldership, and ministry recognised as a settled fixed service in the Church to this end, I cannot reject God’s evidently ordained plan, and set up one of my own, because I think it more spiritual. 

D—— seems (? feels) justified in rejecting all such helps as the way of obtaining proper subordination in the assembly of God’s saints, by saying the “Church is in ruins”; this is his theory; but neither in the word, nor in my own experience or judgment, do I realise that this state of the Church, even though it existed to the full extent that he declares, was to be met by the overthrow of God’s order, and the substitution of one so exceedingly spiritual (if I may so use the term) as it seemed not good to the Holy Spirit to institute, when all things were comparatively in order. 

The other opinion by which the assertion that elders cannot now be appointed was supported, was that none but apostles, or apostolic commissioners, such as Timothy or Titus, could make such appointments. The obvious defect in this theory is that it makes more of the first servants of the Lord than of the Lord Himself, it puts Him to a permanent limitation for want of them; the Holy Spirit indeed abides with the church for ever (John 14:16), but in this matter He is permanently inefficient for lack of certain of His own agents. And it leaves all local assemblies since that first generation under permanent deprivation and danger. It also sets aside apostolic practice as not being for permanent guidance, and nullifies those parts of the New Testament in question. We, on the contrary, maintain that in these matters of church order, as in all others, the New Testament and the apostolic example are of permanent import and value, and ought to be followed. 

When, in 1832, the Lord sent George Müller and Henry Craik to Bristol, He used them mightily to the commencing and building up of a church on simple, primitive lines. They were as necessarily the first rulers of that church as any apostolic evangelists were of churches they founded. But as the fellowship multiplied, and they saw the Spirit qualifying other brethren for oversight, and moving them to addict themselves thereto of their own will (1 Cor. 16:15; 1 Tim. 3:1), they invited such formally to join them in the eldership, and then announced to the assembly the names of those thus invited, which followed the example of Paul’s exhortation regarding Stephanas. Thus there was no selection of rulers by the ruled—a principle contrary to the divine order, since all authority is by delegation from God, the Sole Fount of authority, not by conferment from below, from the subjects: but there was recognition by the church, with opportunity for stating any valid objection. This method has continued, with real advantage to that assembly. In 1848 it was the spiritual wisdom and energy of that body of elders that saved the Bethesda church from disintegration in the Darby–Newton controversy. They were the sea wall that kept out the tidal wave of Darby’s divisive principles and personal influence. There never was any Scriptural reason why this plan should not have been followed in all other cases when brethren were used of God to commence churches. Following the precedent in Acts 6:3, the church at Bethesda has always itself selected deacons to attend to business affairs. 

If it be urged that such God-equipped leaders are few, the answer is swift: “Ye have not because ye ask not.” The Head of the Church has hands ever full of gifts and a heart most willing to bestow them where they are “earnestly desired” (1 Cor. 14:1). If any assembly, however young or small, is honestly prepared to forswear the democratic spirit of the age, and to submit to God-given rule, He will give the rulers, if believing prayer is offered. There is no reason on the Lord’s side why churches should be evermore dependent upon outside ministry. The history of Brethren meetings has itself often afforded proof of this. But it is one more impoverishing departure from the New Testament that it is generally held that the supernatural conferring of gifts is not now the will of God. One elder brother boldly asserted in a large conference: “I ignore the possibility until the return of the Lord”; and only one voice spoke to the contrary.