Another Problem With Ecclesiology

In prior posts I noted the type of defective understanding of Presbyterianism that inhabits the “renewal” movements in the PC(USA). Today I was notified of this video conversation concerning “Multi-site” churches led by Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald and critique thereof by Mark Dever. (You can view the video here).  While all three are Baptist and therefore Congregationalist and therefore all defective in this Presbyterian’s understanding of what the Bible teaches concerning Ecclesiology, Mark Dever does a very good job of pointing out the “man-centered” nature of multi-site churches. No matter what Mark Driscoll thinks his organization will fall-apart after he dies/retires because it has the wrong focus in its understanding of the church and how it should be governed.

Episcocongregian

I made the comment yesterday that one of the major problems facing the renewal groups in the PC(USA) is that they have a defective understanding of Presbyterianism and ecclesiology in general. It is my position that what the PC(USA) has currently is a hybrid of episcopacy and congregationalism. In other words you have a governing body that uses Presbyterian terms (Presbytery, Synod, General Assembly, Elder, Deacon, etc…) but functions with characteristics more fitting both episcopacy and congregationalism.

The episcopacy comes out both in the day-to-day operations of a Presbytery and in how the entire body from General Assembly to local church member operates. Firstly, anyone who has spent time around the PC(USA) knows that all of the power in the denomination resides in Louisville.  It is very much a top-down organization. Nothing happens without some involvement of the myriad department heads at the GA-level. [As a side comment here this is something PCA brothers have noted to me about the growing influence/power coming from Atlanta and how some of the issues in the PCA are from this dimension].  Secondly, the presence of the “Executive Presbyter” in PC(USA) Presbyteries is something that is just non-existent in any of the other presbyterian bodies. While the EP may vary from presbytery-to-presbytery the vast majority of EP’s are Full-Time and exhibit much power over their presbyteries.

The Presbyterian system traditionally (and how it is practiced today in confessionally reformed presbyterian bodies) bears little resemblance to how the current PC(USA) operates at the GA, Synod, and Presbytery levels. Presbyterianism has always been marked by the place it puts the majority of the power in church life.  This place is in the local session not in a bureaucracy at the top-level of the denomination.

Now the Congregationalism is exemplified by how individual churches in the denomination function and see themselves and the rational given in the document submitted by the new renewal group in its understanding how they can continue to remain linked to other congregations that they otherwise find to be defective in theology/practice. Traditionally one of the things that delineated Congregationalists and Presbyterians was how they understood the local church to be related to other bodies of like-minded believers. If one looks at how NACC or CCCC works it fits almost perfectly with what the renewal group is looking for in their new proposed system.  A group with the barest requirements for membership that has no real tangible connectivity and can garner the benefits of a larger organization (read here share legacy and medical costs).  Presbyterianism for 500 years has believed that there is a real tangible relationship between each and every local church in communion. This is one of the reasons why if you read any presbyterian manual of discipline there is great care to show why it is so vital that presbyteries oversee the work being done by their Ministers and if need be remove the leaven from the lump.