It is a quite obvious that this model is a departure from the universal/local church structure and government. It is a clear violation of the Scriptural teaching. To say that the episcopate (office of overseers or bishops) is distinct from the presbyterate (office of elders) is purely a human invention. It has no biblical warrant whatsoever. As we have seen, all elders presbute,rouj are also overseers evpisko,pouj and all are exhorted to shepherd (pastor) poimai,nein the flock of God (Acts 20:17, 28-30 cf 1Pet 5:1-2; Tit 1:5,7). Furthermore, the idea that an overseer, as distinct from the elders, has rule over a group of churches is plainly without Scriptural warrant. Each local church even had a plurality of "overseers" or "bishops" (Acts 20:17,28-30).

Although the motive behind this model might have been noble in the sense that the people felt a need to have some "tangible outward representation and centralization, to illustrate and embody to the people their relation to Christ and to God, and the visible unity of the church" (quoted above), it is, nonetheless, an unscriptural and, therefore, a defective approach. It is a deviation from the Scriptural teaching concerning the structure and government of the universal/local church. And history is a commentary of the evils this deviation has brought to Christianity. We have the evils of this model fully developed in the Roman Catholic Church. Fueled by pride and carnal ambition, note what one Roman Catholic Catechism says about the Pope of Rome: "The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…. By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth; the judge of all, being judged by no one; God himself on earth." (Emphasis mine) (New York Catechism).

The Denominational Model

As we have seen, the distinctive of this model is that a supra-church body rules over member churches, and therefore, there is no local church autonomy. As quoted above, "the members and rulers of each of these congregations singly are subject to the authority of the whole representative convention. In other words, such an association implies the subordination of each congregation, and the rulers of each congregation, to the common and more general authority of the higher courts ". This supra-church body is either composed of the elders of member churches or of men and women chosen by the member churches.

When compared with the Scriptural teaching, this model is clearly unwarranted. For the universal/local church structure as presented above nowhere indicates a supra-church body compose of elders from member churches or members chosen by the churches to act as their representatives to rule over the churches involved. Instead, each local church had a plurality of elders ruling over the particular church they were appointed.

The closest we can find in Scriptures to support the denominational model is the Counsel in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Closer examination, however, shows that the elders from the other churches were not invited to discuss the matter of whether the believing Gentiles had to be circumcised or not. Only the church in Jerusalem, where the apostles of Jesus where based, discussed and decided the issue in question (Acts 15:1-2,6,22-24). The result of that discussion, the apostolic dogma, was sent to the churches and was regarded as binding to them (Acts 16:4,5). The clear teaching of this recorded incident, therefore, is that the church in Jerusalem, where the apostles were based, was the Apostolic See. All churches were to be subject to the church in Jerusalem - the mother of all churches. And for any group or any church now to issue decrees supposedly binding to the churches is to challenge and usurp apostolic authority! Moreover, the incident also teaches a principle that a church may seek the counsel of a more mature church. However, such advice is not vested with apostolic authority, and therefore, cannot be regarded as binding to a church or churches.

And elsewhere in the NT, the autonomy of each local church is plainly and clearly taught. We see it illustrated in the case of Christ's dealings with the seven churches in Asia Minor (Rev 2&3). Christ did not envision a denominational board or some other humanly devised supra-church body to censure any of the seven churches for doctrinal or moral deviations. But Christ (and the Holy Spirit) speaks to each church by way of an apostolic letter, warns the church that unless they repent of their sins and do what He says they must do, then He Himself will deal personally with the church by either destroying it (Rev 2:5; Rev 3:3), disciplining the erring members (Rev 2:16; Rev 2:22-23), or excommunicating the entire church (Rev 3:16). And the message of each letter was not just intended for the church it was particularly addressed, but for all the churches in any and every generation. Thus each letter ends with the statement, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches". This clearly implies that Christ will deal with each church in any and every generation in the same way He said He would deal with those seven churches. The idea of some humanly devised supra-church body ruling over or policing the churches is alien to the mind of Christ.

In addition, it is clear from the Scriptures that there is no court higher than the local church court (Mt 18:15-18). In fact, an apostle could not even excommunicate someone from the church independent of the corporate involvement of the gathered church (1Cor 5:1-7). Therefore, the idea that there is a court higher than the local church court is a clear departure from the Scriptural teaching.

The idea also that a denomination may own the property of local churches and require contributions from them is completely foreign to the Scriptures. Even Paul, the apostle of Christ, did not regard contributions from churches for mission work as mandatory but voluntary (Phil 4:15). Churches, therefore, were autonomous, even though they were under apostolic oversight.

The Associational Model

As mentioned above, there are similarities between the denominational and associational models in that both would involve some organizational structure. This is true even of those who are of the conviction that an association should not have a common purse, run a publication, established a school for theology, run a mission agency, etc.; but that all joint or cooperative efforts supported and approved by the member churches shall be under the direct control and supervision of any one of the confederated or member churches. For an association must have its own constitution, make its own by-laws, recognized some sort of officers, lay certain conditions for accepting or removing members, etc. These things are essential to forming an association.

The difference between the two, however, is that the associational model vows to uphold local church autonomy. As quoted above, an "Association cannot legislate for the churches, exercise any authority over them, or bind them in any way by its own action… They may make suggestions to the churches, or present appeals, and lay requests before them; to all of which the churches will give such attention as may seem to them right and proper."

Of all the above-mentioned models thus far, this model seems to be the most consistent with Scriptures. For this model seems to uphold three important biblical principles - the principle of the autonomy of each local church, the interdependence of churches, and the principle of order (1Cor 14:33, 40). However, one must not rush to embrace this model for the simple reason that we do not see that the NT churches ever formed associational structures in order to implement these important biblical principles. Hiscox, who favors the associational model, honestly admits that, "It (association) is of human, not divine authority; it grows out of the sympathies of Christian fellowship, and the need of mutual help. (Principles and Practice of Baptist Churches: p 335). Also Berkhof admits, "Scripture does not contain an explicit command to the effect that the local churches of a district must form an organic union. Neither does it furnish us with an example of such a union (emphasis mine). In fact, it represents the local churches as individual entities without any external bond of union."(Systematic Theology, Pg. 590-591). What then was the bond of union of those churches? The indwelling of the same Spirit and submission to apostolic rule! With this bond of union they entered into the rich dynamic of inter-church relationships. However, there is no record, whatsoever, that those local churches in the Scriptures formed "associations" or organized themselves into "associations".

The passage often used to support the practice of forming associations was the benevolence work several churches voluntarily undertook for the needy saints in Jerusalem (1Cor 16, 2Cor 8&9). The church in Corinth was the first to begin and desire to do this work of benevolence (2Cor 8:10). The other churches also voluntary joined in this endeavor (2Cor 8:1-12, 2Cor 9:7). A group from the church in Corinth was formed to accompany Paul (1 Cor 16:3,4). Then men were appointed by several participating churches in these endeavor to ensure that no one will discredit the work (2 Cor 8:16-24). This inter-church team, however, was formed by participating churches to accomplish only a very specific and temporary task. As Alan Dunn puts it, "We see that these teams were formed ad hoc and did not assume any permanence. A providential need occasioned the formation of such inter-church team effort. Once the need was met, we read of no establishment of parachurch positions needing to be filled and perpetuated. With the task completed, the team is dissolved and the personnel reassimilated back into their respective churches." (Perspectives on Inter-Church Relationships: Pg. 5).

Click here for your reactions

Noel Espinosa, however, has recently advanced one ingenious justification for the associational model. To quote his paper, "Do we see in scriptures, for example, a mandate that says you must form associations? Well, we don't. Is it therefore a conclusion to be made out of that that therefore associations are wrong? That is based on the wrong approach that you limit yourself to the imperative mood. Let me quote from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. [ 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: I. 6 ] - 'The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own Glory, Man's Salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new Revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God, to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church common to humane actions and societies; which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.' So here, it acknowledges the fact that in the government of the church, there are those things that are not commanded by means of an imperative mood from scriptures, yet they are to be guided by prudence that is according to the general rules of the Word of God. Even the Confession of Faith acknowledges that there are mandates and there are those things consistent with scriptures even though they are not expressly stated in so many words in scriptures."

I see, however, two errors in this line of reasoning. First, the problem of those who are not for the associational model is not that there is no command (imperative) in Scriptures that churches form associations. If that were the case, then even forming local churches would be a problem since there is no command (imperative) in Scriptures to do so. Clear from the apostolic practice or example recorded in Acts and indicated in the Epistles, however, the apostles did organize believers into local churches (Acts 14:21-23; Tit 1:5). And therefore, it is the duty of Christians now to organize themselves into local churches. But that is not the case of associations. We cannot find in Scriptures that the apostles ever formed associations or organized churches into associations. Therefore, that practice is without apostolic warrant.

Another problem I have with that line of reasoning is that it has not dealt with the specific matters envisioned in the confession and the qualifying phrase. To quote that part of the confession, "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church common to humane actions and societies; which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed" (emphasis mine). Those who do not embrace the associational model do not have a quarrel with this statement of the confession. However, it is clear that the confession here is dealing with matters that have to do with working out the details of worship and the government of the church. The details of how long the church is to meet for worship, what is the exact order of worship, how to go about choosing church's officers, etc, must make use of the light of nature and Christian prudence. Moreover, the statement ends with a vital phrase, "according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed". Therefore, in the case of worship, it has to be on the 1st day of the week (1Cor 16:2; Acts 20:7; Rev 1:10), it must include all and only the essential elements of NC worship (Deu 12:29-32; John 4:24; Heb 7:12), it must be consistent with the principle of cooperate edification (1Cor 14:26b). In the case of church officers, the men must be biblically qualified (1Tim 3; Tit 1), there must be active congregational involvement in choosing them (Acts 6). These are the general rules of Scriptures that must always be observed in working out some details in the worship of God and in the government of the church. Now, is organizing churches into associations or forming association according to the general rules of Scriptures, which must always be observed? Can it be considered as simply a matter of detail in the government of the church? Where is the bible example to at least indicate that the apostles ever formed associations or organized churches into associations? None! In the observation of Berkhof quoted above: "Neither does it (Scriptures) furnish us with an example of such a union. In fact, it represents the local churches as individual entities without any external bond of union."

Besides, if we are to follow this line of reasoning, it will prove too much. It will open the way of justifying the creation of all sorts of supra-church and para-church organizations!

There is no apostolic warrant, therefore, for the associational model. And to introduce that model would only complicate the simple universal/local church structure given to us in the Scriptures. To force the rich biblical dynamics of inter-church relation into this model, in spite of its intended benefits, will only complicate matters. It will not really solve the problems it is designed to address and it will even create new ones. To put it simply, the bad effects far outweigh the good it is intended to achieve.

Now what are some of the bad effects? One bad effect is that this model will hinder, instead of promote the true unity of the churches of Christ. What is the true basis of the unity of local churches? Spiritual (indwelt by the same Spirit) and Scriptural (apostolic rule), not some humanly devised external structure or organization. Now what will happen if you will introduce a humanly devised external structure or organization like an association? You will fence out churches that are not part of your associational structure. These churches may be true churches of Christ. But for reasons that they may not yet qualify to be part of your association (they are not fully convinced of the 1689), or they cannot in good conscience join your association or any association, or they may already be part of another association, then you will fence them out. For unless they are part of the associational structure, how can they really be involved in it? But if there were no associational structures, then any true church of Christ, who wants to join in a cooperative effort designed to meet a specific need, can and may join.

Moreover, the associational model can also encourage an illusion of unity. The fact that churches are part of an associational structure does not necessary mean that they are truly united in doctrine. Some churches may just forced themselves to embrace the 1689 so as to qualify to be a member of the associational structure and enjoy the suppose benefits it might offer. This embrace, however, might not really be from an enlightened understanding of the word. A church also may really lack true involvement with other churches, but this defect might be concealed by the fact that she is a part of an association. As J.L. Dagg puts it, " A want of fellowship in a church, is a disease preying on the spiritual strength of the body; but it is better that it should be seen and felt, until the remedy is applied, than that it should be concealed by an outward covering of ecclesiastical forms. When mere organization supplies the union and strength on which we rely, we shall cease to cultivate the unity of the Spirit, and to trust the power of truth." (Manual of Church Order: Second Part: Pg. 279)

Another bad effect in the associational model is that, instead of promoting order, it will lead to unnecessary confusion and tensions, and will encourage carnal politicking. Unlike the inter-church team we find in the Scriptures designed to meet only a specific and temporary task or need, an association has a more permanent and broad role and function. But what would be the role and function of the association over member churches? And since more permanent positions and functions, that are nowhere to be found in the Bible, will have to be created in order to run the association, who will determine what those positions and functions would be? What would be the responsibility and authority of those who hold those more permanent functions? What would be their qualifications? And who will chose those who will be in those positions? This will create unnecessary confusion and tension, and will encourage carnal politicking. It would be like putting all twenty close and related family units under one roof or compound. Instead of improving further their relationships, you will only complicate matters, create confusion of authority and unnecessary tensions. So why complicate matters? Let us cultivate and maintain fellowship with as many true churches of Christ as possible. When a specific need arises, any church can voluntarily participate in a cooperative effort designed to meet a specific need. Let the church share her gifts to as many churches as possible. When necessary, let a church voluntarily seek the advice of a more mature church or churches of her choice. But why complicate the simple biblical structure of the church universal by creating some humanly devised external structure or organization? It will only lead to unnecessary confusion and tensions, and encourage carnal politicking.

Still another bad effect in this associational model is that it is potentially dangerous to human pride and carnal ambition. Now that there are no more living apostles, their delegates, and prophets, there are now only two offices in the church which men can hold - the office of elders and deacons. Therefore, the office of elder or pastor is the highest position one can hold in the church today. Once you are in that office, there are no more steps you can climb in the "ecclesiastical ladder". And since the biblical norm is a plurality and parity of biblically qualified elders, then there is a means to keep in check the dangerous tendency to human pride and carnal ambition. In the associational model, however, there are more permanent positions and functions men can aspire for in the "ecclesiastical ladder". And this is potentially dangerous to human pride and carnal ambition - and church history is a witness to this fact.

Pastors who do not really like the hard and difficult work of shepherding sheep can aspire for some other church function, which an association provides. Gifted men, who might think that the pastorate is too low a work for the exercise of their gifts, can aspire for some "higher" ecclesiastical role or position. This is so dangerous to human pride and carnal ambition as church history graphically illustrates. Never forget what Luther once said that there is a little pope in every single one of us. But if we stick to the universal/local church structure and government as given in the Scriptures, that danger is greatly reduced - although not completely eliminated. As a pastor, I feel well protected with the simple God-ordained structure of a plurality and parity of biblically qualified elders. And I do not have a ladder to climb! Although my influence may go beyond one local church, and yet my authority is clearly limited only to the local church of which the Holy Spirit has made me one of the overseers.

Another bad effect of the associational model is that it will, in a subtle way, eventually undermine local church autonomy it has vowed to uphold. For what if an association votes on a particular issue, like recognizing or removing a church from the association, or engaging in some cooperative effort, and the outcome is not unanimous? Should the minority in disagreement be forced to abide by the decision of the majority? Even if they are not expected to for the sake of upholding the principle of local church autonomy, will they not at least be viewed as divisive, or at least, as suspect? Moreover, will not a small church be externally under pressure, and not that inward pressure that comes from an enlightened conviction, to just conform to what the association has decided less it further delay discussions or less it fall out of grace? So the autonomy of a local church that an association has vowed to uphold will still, in a subtle way, eventually be undermined. It would be like saying that you will be taking a bath but you do not want to get wet in the process!

The Fellowship Model

There is one more model left - the fellowship model, which, in my judgement, is the biblical model. Those who embrace the fellowship model are often accused of isolationism. And sadly, in some churches, there is some truth to that. However, many in favor of this model are also actively involve with other churches. There will always be more room of improvement - yes. But the rich dynamic of inter-church relations is an evident reality.

Another major criticism against this model is that it tends to be without order and acts only according to necessity. But was not the benevolence effort for the needy saints in Jerusalem done voluntarily and out of necessity? And are we now saying that having an associational structure is a "must" for order and in order to avoid acting according to our subjective whims and feelings? If that is the case, then why do we not see the apostles forming associations or organizing churches into associations? And are we saying that churches that have a plurality and parity of biblically qualified elders cannot relate with each other in a principled, proper, and orderly way without an associational structure? Does this not betray a very low view of the eldership and of the local church?

The only rationale why an associational structure could be a necessity is when churches have less than a plurality of biblically qualified elders acting in true biblical parity (which is still a problem in many Reformed Baptist Churches today). If that were the situation, then maybe an associational structure would be necessary. However, even that would not be the real and biblical solution. The solution is to earnestly pray and labor that God would soon raise biblical qualified elders in all the churches just as He did during the apostolic era. Men who are spiritually mature, men who know and love the teachings of the Scriptures, men who can rule well, men with sober integrity, men who can handle problems and criticisms biblically, men who genuinely see the need of a plurality of biblically qualified elders in a local church and can work in true biblical parity with each other, men who are blameless. This is the biblical solution! Let us not look for some other solution. Let us not devise our own human solutions. But let us cry to God and labor that churches will soon have a plurality of biblically qualified elders working in true biblical parity.

Like an autonomous family unit relating with other autonomous family units, each local church is organizationally and structurally complete under Christ and apostolic rule. Therefore, she is at liberty to follow her enlightened convictions and freely enter into the rich dynamics of inter-church relations with any and as many true churches of Christ as possible, without the complications that come from being a part of a humanly devised external structure or organization. This is the genius of the fellowship and biblical model!

There will be no confusion of authority and no carnal politicking. No pressure to surrender local church's autonomy. Each church is not under pressure to embrace certain beliefs, without true heart conviction, just to become a part of an association or so as not to be left out. There will be no pressure to embrace the decision of the majority of member churches in an association just to avoid tension and division and a falling out of grace. Any true church can freely and voluntarily enter and participate in a specific cooperative effort designed to meet a particular need without the necessity of joining an association and without the need of being bound by some other agreed policies that have nothing to do with the particular cooperative effort. The elders will have to be content with and focused upon their God-given work and calling because they know the sphere of their authority and responsibility and they have no higher positions to aspire. The members feel safe that they are under the rule of men whom they have the confidence; because they personally know them as those who are biblically qualified and they themselves have chosen them for the office. Whenever there are conflicts and problems within the church, the members are forced to settle them within the bounds of the local church and not drag others who are not in any position to be involved or take sides. When a church cannot solve internal problems on her own, she can still voluntarily request any church or churches of her own choice for advisory help, without other churches meddling in her own affairs. That's the beauty and that's the genius of the fellowship and biblical model of inter-church relations!

CONCLUDING APPEAL

There are still some practical questions left unanswered as to how the fellowship model actually works out in practice. What if a disciplined member of another church applies for membership in your church and he/she alleges of having been a victim of unbiblical church disciplined? How are you to relate to churches that obviously have abusive leaders? How are you to relate to churches that have some doctrinal error? How are you to relate with church leaders whose personal actions and dealings with you are questionable? Although these practical questions need some answers, I will not enter into them for now. Alan Dunn in his paper "Perspective on Inter-Church Fellowship" helpfully deals with some of those practical questions and problems. And confident of the completeness and all-sufficiency of the Scriptures, each church needs to wrestle with practical questions and problems of this nature.

In seeking biblical answers and solutions, however, we must work within the universal/local church structure as we find it in the New Testament. To try to solve those problems by introducing a humanly devised structure not warranted by the Bible would only complicate matters and create many new problems. Church history is a witness that any deviation from the apostolic structure and government of the church will only have serious repercussions Let us not forget the warning of the Scriptures, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough" (Gal 5:9).