Book of Church Order

Council of Elders May 2013 Orlando, Florida

Table of Contents
The Sovereign Grace Book of Church Order
I.

General Principles ............................................................................................................ 5 Local Church Polity

A. The Office of Elder ......................................................................................................... 9 B. The Elder as Christian First ............................................................................................ 16 C. Elders and Plurality ......................................................................................................... 16 D. Bi-vocational Elders........................................................................................................ 17 E. The Senior Pastor ............................................................................................................ 18 F. Repositioning of the Senior Pastor ................................................................................. 19 G. Accountability for Elders ................................................................................................ 21 H. The Ordination of Elders ................................................................................................ 22 I. The Office of Deacon...................................................................................................... 27 J. The Role of the Congregation ......................................................................................... 30 K. Local Church Bylaws ...................................................................................................... 34

II.

III.

Extra-Local Polity
A. Regional Assemblies of Elders ....................................................................................... 35 B. Council of Elders ............................................................................................................ 41 C. Nominating Committee ................................................................................................... 44 D. Executive Committee ...................................................................................................... 45 E. Leadership Team ............................................................................................................. 47 F. Partnership Agreement.................................................................................................... 49 G. Process of Separation ...................................................................................................... 53

IV.

Rules of Discipline
A. Principles of Discipline ................................................................................................... 55 B. Discipline in the Local Church ....................................................................................... 56 C. Discipline of a Member .................................................................................................. 57 D. Discipline of an Elder ..................................................................................................... 58 E. Regional Judicial Review Committees ........................................................................... 69 F. SG Court of Appeal ........................................................................................................ 72

Appendices to the Book of Church Order

Appendix I: Introduction to the Second Edition ............................................................................... 75 Appendix II: A Brief Explanation of Major Revisions ..................................................................... 81 Appendix III: Appeal for Ecclesiastical Union ................................................................................. 83 Appendix IV-A: A Defense of the Proposal from a Congregationalist Perspective......................... 87 Appendix IV-B: A Defense of the Proposal from a Presbyterian Perspective ................................. 91 Appendix IV-C: A Defense of the Proposal from an Apostolic-Presbyterian Perspective .............. 97 Appendix V: Subscription to the Statement of Faith and Book of Church Order ............................ 103 Appendix VI: SGM International Partners ....................................................................................... 109 Appendix VII: Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 111 Appendix VIII: A Comparison of the Old Board and the New Executive Committee .................... 115 Appendix IX: Letter of Intent ........................................................................................................... 117

The Sovereign Grace Book of Church Order

I. General Principles of the Sovereign Grace Churches
A. Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18), and he reigns as head over his church (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22), which he purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:12). All authority in the church derives from him and is exercised on his behalf. B. A local church consists of any body of baptized believers associated together for the worship of God and for carrying out Christs commission to disciple the nations (Matt. 28:19-20). The churchs worship essentially includes the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lords Supper, and the maintenance of corporate holiness through discipline. It also includes the singing of songs, hymns, and spiritual songs and the exercise of the spiritual gifts for mutual edification. C. Each SG church is an expression of the church universal and, as such, has an essential integrity as an authentic church. A local church does not depend for its essential identity as a church of Jesus Christ upon its institutional affiliation with any other church. Each local church has the authority to govern its own affairs, call and ordain its own deacons and elders, and maintain its own holiness through church discipline as necessary. D. The primary governance structure in a local church is its eldership. The elders of each local church have primary responsibility to govern its affairs under the Lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. 1. 2. 3. The terms elder, pastor/shepherd, and overseer/bishop all refer to one and the same office (Titus 1:5, 7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2). While officers are not absolutely essential to the existence of a local church, they are necessary for its well-being (Acts 14:23-25; Titus 1:5; Eph. 4:11-16). Each church should strive to have a plurality of elders, according to the biblical precedent and prescription (Acts 11:30; 13:1; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1). This priority, while biblical, is not absolute. The NT can envision a church without a plurality of elders, and the goal of plurality is balanced by the need to have qualified elders (1 Tim. 5:22). Although elders have different gifts and roles (1 Cor. 12; Rom. 12:3-8; cf. 1 Cor. 3:5-9; Luke 19:11-27), all must meet the same qualifications because all occupy the same office (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), which essentially involves ruling and teaching (1 Tim. 3:2; cf. 2 Tim. 2:24; Titus 1:9). Since all elders occupy the same office, they have equal authority and act as a body (Acts 13:1-3; 15:22-23). Elders ought to receive compensation (1 Cor. 9:6-14; Luke 10:7/Matt 10:10), and congregations have a correlative duty to pay them if possible (Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17-18). Elders, as under-shepherds of Christ (1 Pet. 5:1-4), must serve as examples, teach sound doctrine, guard against false doctrine, care for the spiritual well-being of the church, govern the affairs of the church, equip the church for ministry, and raise up future leadership. Apostles and elders governed the churches of the NT. SG churches allow for the belief in modern-day apostles or apostolic leadership without requiring it or explicitly featuring it in
5

4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

their polity. SG churches recognize the office of elder as continuing today. The office of deacon continues as well but is not a governing office. Some of the non-authoritative functions of apostles are carried out by Regional Leaders and the members of the Leadership Team. 9. Church members do not have an inferior status to elders, but are equal in standing before Christ and fellow members of his body. All members of the churchelders and congregantsare sheep under the authority of the Chief Shepherd, submitted to Gods Word. All possess the same privileges of adoption by God, redemption by Christ, and filling of the Holy Spirit. Church members also have vital responsibilities that contribute to the life and mission of the church.

10. In addition to their vital role and many privileges, church members are called to submit to their elders in church affairs (1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:5), assuming that elders are faithfully teaching and leading in accordance with Gods Word, which circumscribes their authority. 11. The responsibility to receive and excommunicate church members belongs to the church as a whole (Matt. 18:18-20) but is specifically given to the churchs governing officers to exercise in leadership of the congregation (Matt. 16:18-19; John 20:23; 1 Cor. 4:14-5:13; 2 Cor. 13:14). In addition to a full array of other mutual responsibilities (e.g., love, encouragement, care, etc.), congregants are obliged to lovingly confront one another for impenitent sin (Matt. 18:15-16). Governing officers are authorized to hear such charges and render a verdict which they pronounce on behalf of the whole church and in its presence, in the name and power of Jesus Christ, as a corporate appeal for the sinner to repent (Matt. 18:17, 20; 1 Cor. 4:19-21; 5:4-5). Congregants have the duty to carry out the discipline of an excommunicated person by relating to him/her as an unbeliever (1 Cor. 5:9-13; 2 Cor. 2:6; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15). Governing officers also decide when to readmit the penitent to the fellowship of the church (2 Cor. 2:6-8). It is the duty of the congregants to forgive, comfort, and reaffirm their love for such a one (2 Cor. 2:7-8). 12. Congregants help to identify men in their midst who are qualified to serve as officers (Acts 1:23; 6:3a, 5). But only governing officers, with the counsel and support of the congregation, exercise the authority to select, ordain, and install church officers (Acts 6:3b, 6; Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5). 13. Congregants have the duty to bring charges against immoral or heterodox church officers (2 Cor. 11:4; 1 Tim. 5:19). Governing officers have the duty to adjudicate such charges and to pronounce public censure (1 Tim. 5:19-21). E. Christ is the head of one body, the church universal, consisting of the elect saints of all ages who share the one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. SG local churches seek to give their spiritual unity in Christ as much concrete institutional expression as is practical. In this way we bear visible witness to our union under one head, Jesus Christ; we benefit from the gifts and wisdom of other leaders and members of the body of Christ; we increase our effectiveness in fulfilling the mission Christ has given to his church; we strive toward and protect the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God; and thus the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, grows up into mature manhood.

F. Moreover, no local church is omnicompetent or self-sufficient to carry out the mission which Christ has entrusted to the entire church (Matt. 28:19-20). Each local body stands in need of other local bodies in a relationship of interdependence. G. This interdependence is more adequately expressed when local churches associate together in wider ecclesiastical bodies with shared resources, mission, mutual care, support, edification, and cooperation in government. Such cooperation is necessary for the protection of doctrinal fidelity and standards of holiness, the direction of a common mission, and the disposal of common funds. The members of an ecclesiastical body bear a substantial degree of corporate responsibility for the holiness and welfare of the whole. H. Therefore the elders of local churches are accountable for their life and doctrine, not only to their own local congregations, but also in part to the broader ecclesiastical body as represented by her officers. The authority a local eldership exercises over its local congregation should not be an absolute authority without further appeal or recourse. I. The SG churches express these principles of spiritual unity primarily through the Regional Assemblies of Elders and the Council of Elders. These bodies advance the mission by administrating church planting, pastoral training and theological education, and ordination standards. Through the actions of these bodies, the churches share material and spiritual resources with one another. The Regional Assemblies of Elders and the Council of Elders also help maintain the integrity of our corporate witness through the exercise of specified extra-local functions. These assemblies, to which elders agree to hold themselves accountable, serve as a protection to local congregations. They additionally perform a vital and necessary function in the process of the ordination of elders, their censure, judging their qualification for office, and other judicial functions detailed below in the Rules of Discipline. Each church maintains control over its own property and physical assets in accordance with its bylaws and does not relinquish such control by joining an ecclesiastical union. J. The SG churches comprise an ecclesiastical body, significantly bound together in a common confession of faith, pursuing a common mission, guarding the corporate holiness of all the members, and governed by the assembly of the elders. 1. Every church or association of particular churches is entitled to determine the terms for admission into its communion, the qualifications of its pastors, and the workings of its internal government as long as these are in compliance with the Word of God. SG churches, based upon mutual love and confidence, have voluntarily determined to approve and appropriate the SG Statement of Faith, Partnership Agreement, and Book of Church Order as governing statutes and guidelines ordering their fellowship locally and with other SG churches. This genuine union among SG churches carries with it all the rights and privileges due to each SG local church.1

1 These privileges include such things as access to specialized theological training through the SGM Pastors College, leadership training at various levels through Small Group Leaders, Worship, and Pastors Conferences, numerous resourcing opportunities such as SGM music products and updates, Administrator Conferences, and church operations websites, special week-long Continuing Education Seminars with seminary professors and counselors, domestic and international mission cooperation, college preparatory worldview camps such as the Clash, church planting residencies, and generous church planting grants for qualified and gifted church planters.
7

2.

Yet union and fellowship within an ecclesiastical body is much more than a temporary means toward receiving the benefits of such a union. Union carries with it both benefit and responsibility. Though at present it is not feasible to attain universal doctrinal and ecclesiastical unity within the body of Christ, it is commendable to tangibly demonstrate the reality of the love of God for his Son, his church, and his people by uniting and remaining in bona fide fellowship with other like-minded Christian congregations.

SGs polity gives tangible expression to Gods command to pursue doctrinally substantiated unity and love (John 17:20-23) by connecting congregations to a broader ecclesiastical body of affiliated churches. Therefore, just as a church or an individual should not enter into a fellowship of churches lightly, so they should not leave a fellowship of churches in a casual way. Disassociation often conveys a false message about the bonds of Christian love. Christian churches have a responsibility to work for unity (see Phil. 2:2, 4:2; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:3, 12-13) within their formalized affiliations both locally and extra-locally (1 Cor. 1:2). One way that commitment to Christ and his church can be expressed is by willingly yoking oneself to other like-minded churches and determining to remain in affectionate fellowship unless matters of conscience or doctrinal infidelity prevent such association. The same sobriety and reticence that should mark a decision by SG to remove a church should be present if a local congregation contemplates terminating its partnership and interconnectedness to the broader ecclesiastical body. Furthermore, any local church considering disassociation should consider not only the benefits it will forfeit, but the gifts it will deprive the wider ecclesiastical body of by such an acute action. The privilege of association (which includes doctrinal and moral accountability and continued fellowship in an organization of churches expressing the unity and love of Christ) takes precedence over issues of convenience, preference, difficult circumstances, an unwillingness to make minor concessions over tertiary matters, or a position of unqualified independence. In protecting the reputation of Christ, every church should make a concerted, vigorous, and lasting effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, modeling the love of Christ in its given communion of churches by only withdrawing from such fellowship due to exceptional circumstances. K. We affirm that the visible church is the only organization on earth explicitly commissioned and equipped by Christ to disciple the nations. No other parachurch organization has been thus commissioned and equipped as the church of Jesus Christ. Because the visible church should not substantially delegate its mission to another organization, Sovereign Grace Ministries is therefore intentionally organized as an instrument of the Sovereign Grace churches that helps to facilitate their cooperation in relationship and a common mission. Its Executive Committee, Leadership Team, and employees occupy no higher or different church office than any other elders. As men endowed with a range of gifts to provide leadership to the church in its broader mission, the Directors and members of the Executive Committee are commissioned to such unique tasks by the Sovereign Grace elders to whom they are accountable. They have no special authority in the churches other than that which has been specifically delegated to them by the elders. L. We affirm that SG exists to promote the shared values of: 1. Reformed soteriology 2. Gospel-centered expository preaching 3. Continuationist pneumatology 4. Complementarian leadership in the home and church 5. Elder-governed and -led churches 6. National and international outreach and church planting 7. Interdependent churches united in fellowship, mission, and governance
8

II. Local Church Polity

A. The Office of Elder
1. New Testament Terminology: Elder, Pastor, Overseer From the beginning, local churches have been governed and led by elders (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) with the assistance of deacons (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 3:8-13). Elder, Pastor, Overseer The elder is ordained in a church to lead, teach, care for, and protect that local church. While we most often use the term elder for the pastoral office of the church, this is only one of several terms used in the NT to describe the role. The Bible refers interchangeably to this office as elder, pastor or shepherd, and overseer. Elder comes from the Greek presbuteros (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:1). When used of the office in the church, the implication is that the man is a mature and wise man, not necessarily that he has reached a certain age (1 Tim. 4:12). A second term used of elders in the NT is pastor or shepherd (Gr., poimn) as in Ephesians 4:11, He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers (cf. John 21:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Places like John 10 and Psalm 23 remind us of the specific, individual care that God extends to us as our Good Shepherd and model for us what is meant by the term as it is applied to the elders of a local church. A third term is overseer (Gr., episkopos) as in 1 Timothy 3:1: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task (cf. Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:7). This term captures the authority and leadership entrusted to elders. It is critical that we see the equivalence of these three terms in the NT: an elder is a pastor is an overseer. We can see the synonymous nature of the terms in Titus 1:5-9 where Titus is told to appoint elders (v. 5), and then he is instructed concerning potential candidates: the overseermust be (v. 7). Further, in Acts 20:28 the Ephesian elders (20:17) are told how they must shepherd their flock as overseers. In 1 Peter 5:1-4 he addresses elders (v. 1) and tells them to shepherd the flock of God that is among you (v. 2), specifically by exercising oversight (v. 2). While verb forms are mixed with the noun elder here, the ideas of eldershepherd-overseer are clearly coextensive. Thus, we ought to use all three terms to refer to the same office. Further, we need to let our understanding of the pastoral office include the connotations of all three terms. We cannot let one term swallow up the other two. Thus, the leadership and authority implied by overseer is to be joined to the protection, care, and nourishment implied by the use of pastor; and both of these are to be attached to the wisdom and mature discernment implied by the term elder. The Bible itself must guide our use of these different terms, not how they have become traditionally understood in certain denominations. 2. The Responsibilities of the Elder The elder-pastor-overseer has four broad responsibilities within the local church. Elders feed, oversee, care for, and protect the flock entrusted to them. a. First, pastors are to feed the flock entrusted to their care (John 21:15).

Elders are teachers (Eph. 4:11) who build the church in their care by preaching and teaching (1 Tim. 5:17). This is why an elder must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2). Teaching happens through the ministry of the Word on Sunday mornings but also in the more private reproofcorrectiontraining (2 Tim. 3:16), and exhortation (4:2) that happens in the pastors ministry to individuals. b. Second, elders are to oversee the flock entrusted to them (1 Tim. 3:1). Elders provide leadership and thus manage God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5). This leadership requirement is seen by the use of the title overseers to describe an elder (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-2; Titus 1:7). Further, the use of the term manage in 1 Timothy 3:5 and the reference to ruling (Gr., proistmi) in 1 Timothy 5:17 also support the notion that elders govern the church in a leadership capacity (cf. Rom. 12:8; 1 Thess. 5:12; etc.). Hebrews 13:17, which uses the more general term leaders (participle from geomai, lead, guide), commands Christians to Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, which seems to provide corroboration regarding the management and governing responsibilities of elders. Additionally, 1 Peter 5:2 reminds pastors that they are to be those exercising oversight, not under compulsion. c. Third, pastors are to care sincerely for the flock entrusted to them by God (Acts 20:28). Just as the great commandments are to love God and to love our neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40), and apart from love we accomplish nothing and are nothing (1 Cor. 13:1-3), so a shepherd must be genuinely concerned for the welfare of every member of his respective church, not seeking his own interests, but those of Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:19-21). d. Fourth, elders protect the flock, looking out for wolves that can come from without or within the church (Acts 20:28-30). Elders are to pay careful attention and to be alert (vv. 28, 30). This is not to give an elder a suspicious heart, but a watchful one; not a cynical heart, but a cautious one. For example, the elder must know the difference between someone who disagrees with him and a divisive man who is actually a wolf (Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10). Such attentiveness and discernment is part of the role. 3. Qualifications for Elders Elders are to be men of exemplary character and adequate gifting. Many of the qualifications detailed for elders are commanded of all Christian men, implying the primacy of the elders example. The difference with elders is that these qualifications are mandatory for office. The NT gives a number of requirements for elders, many of which do not appear in a list, e.g., he is to invest in and raise up future leaders (2 Tim. 2:2), to grow in his handling of Gods Word (2 Tim. 2:15), to patiently endure evil (2 Tim. 2:24), etc. However, Paul provides the basic profile of an elder in the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, which are as follows: a. Elders are to be men (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6; cf. 1 Tim 2:12). b. Elders must have a sincere and mature faith in Christ, a connotation of the term elder (1 Tim. 3:6). The Bible warns against allowing recent converts to occupy the office of elder because of the danger of pride and the temptations that might accompany pastoral ministry for an immature believer.

10

c. Pastors must be men of authentic and exemplary Christian character (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), though they are not sinless (1 John 1:8-10). Elders are called to be godly men. Their role as examples to the church and the temptations that accompany this office make it essential to have men of character perform this service. However, godliness does not equal sinlessness (see 1 John 1:8-10). Elders will not be perfect, though they must still be above reproach in the general sense. To call an elder above reproach is not to say that he is without fault, but rather, that he cannot be charged with any significant pattern of sin or especially heinous sin that will bring shame to the church or the gospel and ultimately undermine his pastoral ministry. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 give the clearest pictures of what kind of man the elder is to be. We will summarize those requirements here. a) Above reproach (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6) and holy (Titus 1:8) The elder's life must not have obvious flaws that make his life open to the charge of hypocrisy, bring shame to the gospel, or would make the temptations that go along with the office of elder too great for him. He is one whom others would call holy in the basic, observable, but relative way that all fallen men can be holy. b) The husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6) The requirement here does not speak to whether a man has been divorced or remarried, but, if he is married, speaks to a general faithfulness and sexual purity in his current marriage. He is a one woman kind of man. Of course, a man's marital history is relevant to establish his character, but his marital history is not primarily in view in these verses. c) Sober-minded (1 Tim. 3:2) The thought here is a clear-headedness that leads to rational thinking in difficult situations. The potential overseer must have the ability to see people in a variety of situations and not make rash judgments. Further, the elder must demonstrate a basic wisdom and insight into the human heart. The elder should possess the ability to encounter sin without being surprised and without growing cynical. d) Self-controlled (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8) and disciplined (Titus 1:8) Having control of oneself has relevance in all areas of life, such as finances, sexual purity, decision making, spiritual disciplines, use of time, etc. The man's lifestyle ought to reflect intentional thinking and living, prudence, and wisdom. e) Respectable (1 Tim. 3:2), well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil (1 Tim. 3:7), and upright (Titus 1:8) These terms represent the outward sense that others have of the elder. He is a man others would describe as respectable, which means worthy of respect. He is dignified and proper in this outward sense. Yet 1 Timothy 3:7 also warns us that his reputation with those outside the church is important as well. The idea here is that if even an unbeliever thinks poorly of the man, how could we possibly elevate him in the church? This is speaking to his character, of course. If his reputation is poor specifically because of his stand for Christ and the gospel or because of slander, that is different. What is in view here is his integrity. It will be a disgrace to appoint a man to this office whom even unbelievers think a poor example. f) Hospitable (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8)
11

The hospitality required of all Christians (1 Pet. 4:9) is to be practiced by the elder. In his life, there is a general openness to other people, whether demonstrated by shared meals, giving of his time, or simply being consistent in building relationships with others. g) Not a drunkard (1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7) The self-mastery of previous characteristics makes it clear that an elder should not be mastered by wine, drugs, or any other substance, but Paul makes it explicit here. Other potentially addictive types of activities such as gambling, pornography, computer gaming, or any activity that has overflowed its boundaries in the man's life could potentially apply as well. h) Not violent but gentle (1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7); Not quarrelsome (1 Tim. 3:3), not quick-tempered (Titus 1:7) An elder faces difficult people and difficult situations and faces emotional conflicts between godly people. Thus, a man prone to bully, fight, or be generally hot-headed should not serve in this office. An elder must be correcting his opponents with gentleness (2 Tim. 2:25) and must be patient with them all (1 Thess. 5:14). There is a general ability to bring peace to situations of conflict (peaceable, 1 Tim. 3:3, NASB). Occasional expressions of anger or impatience are simply part of our fallenness, but if these characterize the man for those who live with himhis family, co-workers, others in churchthe man must not be an elder. i) Not a lover of money (1 Tim. 3:3) or greedy for gain (Titus 1:7) There are different ways to be disqualified because a man is a lover of money. It can mean a general greed that motivates someone to exploit the church for his own financial gain (Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:2), or worse, to steal from it (Eph. 4:28). It can also mean a covetousness in the man's life that is really a form of idolatry (Col. 3:5), or it could simply be a continual discontent with what God has provided for him (Phil. 4:10-13; Heb. 13:5). All of these are temptations for everyone, but when they are characteristic of a man, he should not serve as an elder. j) A lover of good (Titus 1:8) This term in the Greek (philagathos) has to do with the heart of the potential elder. It is more than someone described as a good man or one committed to do good works (Titus 2:14), though it encompasses these. Beneath these is also to be a real love of and commitment to the good or God's best. There is a demonstrated motivation to work for the good in others, in situations, and in his own life. An overseer's love for people is always to be correlated with a love for what God wants people to be.2 4. Overseers must be skilled managers of their homes with evident fruit in their children. Few qualifications for the elder are as sobering as this one, but none are more telling of the kind of leader that a man will be in God's church. The daily interaction, myriad of situations, unpredictability, balance of love and strength, demand for wisdom, and sheer test of character that happen in a home mirror profoundly the kind of labors an elder is called to in the church. Further, a man may keep his true self fairly hidden from his co-workers, but what he truly is will be revealed in his family life.
2

George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992) 292
12

Yet, while a man's wife and children are a vital evidence of a man's leadership, they are not an infallible one. The heart of the child plays a part in the overall fruitfulness of his or her life. Thus, as we examine a man's household, we must not make hasty judgments. 1 Timothy 3:4-5 and Titus 1:6 spell out the kind of leader in the home that the overseer is to be. a. The man must lead his household well. The NT says of the elder that he must manage his own household well, with all dignity (1 Tim. 3:4). The key word used in Timothy is manage, a term that means to lead, rule, direct. How a man cares for his house and property and how he leads his wife and children should be included in this requirement. The passage requires that the man lead his family well; all men are the heads of their homes, but we are looking for the man who leads well. A household kept in order by coercion and threat is clearly inconsistent with the other character traits listed of elders. A potential elder is instead to manage his household with all dignity. Further, a man who manages his household well is obedient to the commandments related to his role as a father and husband: he is a husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25-33), he is living with her in an understanding way (1 Pet. 3:7), and he is a father who is bringing his children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). In other words, there is a pattern of loving discipleship and gracious leadership in his management of the home. b. The character of the children must be evident in their response to the father and their overall behavior (1 Tim. 3:5; Titus 1:6). A chief evidence of the man's parenting is his children. Their character, behavior, and even faith are seen as proper signs of how well he is parenting. The first and basic evidence to examine is that his children are submissive (1 Tim. 3:4), not insubordinate (Titus 1:6). A man whose leadership inspires the honor, respect, and basic obedience of his children has likely led his family well and with all dignity, not through the threat of violence. Titus 1:6 adds that an elder must have faithful children not accused of riot or unruly (KJV; cf. NET). We believe the requirement here is for a man's children to be faithful, not that the children be believing (ESV, NASB). The word pista can be translated in either way with good biblical precedent,3 but the context in Titus connects faithful children to the issues of debauchery and insubordination, and in 1 Timothy 3:4 the parallel Greek phrase calls for children who are in submission. It seems then that Paul is referring to the obedience of the child, not their faith. Further, there is the theological issue that we cannot require the regeneration of a child for the father to be qualified. The spiritual state of the child is in the hands of the Lord, not the father, and is determined before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). For these reasons, we believe the Bible requires the elder's children to be obedient to him, not that the children be Christians. The requirement also does not apply to grown children, because adults are responsible for
3

For "faithful" as a character trait cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; Eph. 6:21; Titus 1:9; 3:8; for "believer" as in "possessing faith in Christ," cf. John 20:27; Acts 10:45

13

their own behavior and are not bound to obey their parents (even though they continue to honor them, Ex. 20:12). This basic obedience in the elders children certainly does not mean sinlessness, and we ought to be very slow to disqualify a man for a given incident with one or more of his children. The key question is whether the incident reveals the general foolishness of youth or a characteristic and persistent lack of faithfulness in the father. Lastly, an elder's children must not be open to the charge of debauchery (Titus 1:6). Debauchery can include drunkenness (cf. Eph 5:18), but the broader sense perhaps fits better here: reckless abandon, wild living, loose living. The question in view here is not a single incident of drunkenness or some other reckless act in the child of a potential elder, but a lifestyle that is out of control in a visible and public manner. c. The elder's household is relevant because of the connection between parenting and pastoring. The Bible makes an explicit connection between caring for your family and caring for Christ's church: For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? (1 Tim. 3:5). The implication is that effective leadership in the home requires a set of gifts that eldership in God's church also requires. We can think of the combination of strategic thinking and personal relationship; the need to be both strong and gentle; the need to speak God's truth clearly, but in an environment of love and affection; the challenge of accepting someone fully for who they are and yet lovingly calling them on to something greater; and more besides. All of these dichotomies come together in the home and in the church. We believe that it is for this reason that God upholds a man's home as a necessary tool for evaluation. 5. Pastors must possess an aptitude for sound doctrine. Elders must also possess an aptitude for sound doctrine, which means they understand and believe it and can teach and defend it. However, since we are appointing elders and not seminary professors, we might call it an aptitude for applied sound doctrine. Beyond this, it includes a facility with the biblical text that demonstrates he is a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). This aptitude for sound doctrine has four components to it. a. First, the elder must understand sound doctrine (2 Tim. 2:15; Titus 1:9). From Titus 1:9, we can see that the elder must personally understand the trustworthy word as taught. A man only barely able to grasp the basics of Christianity will likely be unable to lead others in understanding and believing what the NT calls sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:9; 2:1). Having an aptitude for doctrine would also include indications that the man is a proven student of the Bible (2 Tim. 2:15). b. Second, the elder must believe sound doctrine. This calls attention to the potential elder's personal faith and confidence in orthodox Christian belief. The challenges of the office require that a man hold firm to his own faith if he is going to be able to shepherd people wrestling with theirs. c. Third, the pastor must be able to teach sound doctrine (Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 3:16-4:2; Titus 1:9).
14

In 1 Timothy Paul says that the elder must be able to teach (3:2), but in Titus we get a sense of the purpose of this aptitude. It is so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine (1:9). The teaching he received and believes, he is thus to pass along to others. Such an ability to teach implies a basic ability to organize ideas, accurately exegete the biblical text, and communicate this in a way that encourages, instructs, and even inspires other believers. d. Fourth, the pastor must be able to defend sound doctrine (Acts 20:28-30; Titus 1:9). The final component of the elder's aptitude in sound doctrine brings the first three together: He must be able to defend sound doctrine to those who challenge or contradict it. Paul expresses this in Titus 1:9: He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. Throughout the pastoral epistles, we learn of an array of opponents of the gospel (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 2:14-19; Titus 1:10-16), and throughout the NT, we see that the gospel is always being attacked (e.g., Phil. 3:1-12; 2 Pet. 2:1-22). This ability to defend the gospel against its opponents is part of the shepherd's (pastor's) role in guarding the flock entrusted to him from fierce wolves both inside and outside the church (Acts 20:28-30). The skills involved here include: (1) discerning the theological issue in question; (2) understanding the truth to combat the lie; and (3) communicating God's truth graciously, which is to find the right word for the moment (Eph. 4:29), or at least a reasonable one. A man cannot be expected to defend all doctrines equally well, but he needs to demonstrate facility with the central doctrines of the church. This aptitude will likely grow as the man performs the duties of an elder, but to be qualified for ordination to the office, there must be some basic ability to do this. The oral exam of the ordination process, conversation about theological topics, and asking a man how he would respond to hypothetical situations all shed light on a man's ability here. 6. Overseers must possess the gift of leadership. We noted above that the elder is an overseer in God's church, leading, managing, and governing the local church according to the revelation of Scripture and Christian prudence, all for the good of the members of the church and the glory of God. The elder's responsibility to lead means that he must possess the necessary gifting to lead. This gifting includes having sufficient wisdom to make good decisions in small and large matters, the ability to communicate and implement those decisions, and biblical wisdom to speak into the affairs of the church. The elder's leadership will involve thinking theologically about the needs of the church and the future direction of the church. Leadership involves a certain amount of casting vision to the church or a segment of the church. A given elder will likely have more gifting in certain areas of the life of the church than in others, but there must be a basic level of leadership to serve as an elder. There are three places to look when determining a man's fitness to lead in God's church. The first is the most critical: his family (1 Tim. 3:4-5). The second is his current service in the church. How has he demonstrated responsibility, initiative, care, a command of the Scriptures, and a zeal for God in his volunteer work for the church? A third area is his personal and professional life.

15

Is he self-controlled? Conscientious? Able to handle delegated responsibility? Does he have a well-managed life? Such questions can be helpful when ascertaining a man's leadership gift. 7. Qualification of an Elder Versus Removal of an Elder 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 are given to help us know what to look for in elder candidates in the church. These passages also present the gifting and character traits that called men should continue to cultivate in ministry. The description in these passages should not be viewed as a rigid standard that acts as some trigger to automatically and immediately disqualify a man should he be seen to fall short. If a pastor is found to no longer fit the description in the text, the local elders should explore the situation to determine the reason this is the case. There is an important difference between the selection process and the removal process for elders. Each church should have a clear process in place to handle the care, evaluation, discipline, and removal of elders. 1 Timothy 5:19-21 is given to help guide us in how to handle an elder who has committed scandalous sin or persists in serious sin for which a public rebuke might be necessary. The proper approach for addressing charges against an elder are addressed in IV.D of the Book of Church Order.

B. The Elder as Christian First

It is critical for both the church and its elders that leadership is seen in a proper light. Pastors and churches suffer when pastors are seen in an inflated manner or as some professional class of Christians far removed from the rest of us. Here are several ideas that should inform a church's view of its elders and the elder's view of himself. 1. Overseers are men under authority before they are men entrusted with authority (1 Cor. 11:3, Rom. 1:1). 2. Elders are brothers in Christ with all those in their church before they are fathers in the faith to anyone (Romans 12:10, John 1:12). 3. Pastors are also sheep before they are shepherds (John 10:1-15; 1 Pet. 5:4). 4. Overseers are servants before they are leaders (Heb. 13:17, 1 Tim. 3:4-5). 5. Elders must see themselves as only one part of the body of Christ with Christ alone as the head (Eph. 1:23; 4:15-16; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19).

C. Elders and Plurality

Elders are to serve as a plurality, not alone; though how many elders constitute adequate plurality is not given in the NT. It teaches this by precedent, which we see in the fact that all mentions of elder are in the plural (e.g., Acts 14:23; 15:2-16:4; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 4:14; etc.). Plurality is a means of acknowledging that God gives a diversity of gifts to his people (1 Cor. 12:711). No one man has all the gifts necessary to lead a local church. While all elders must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2), some will be more gifted than others. While all of them must have leadership to manage the household of God (1 Tim. 3:4), some will have gifting along administrative lines and others along more strategic lines. Plurality will often mean that different elders will have different responsibilities in the church that line up with their gifting as much as is feasible. Further, when decisions are made in the life of the
16

church, often one man possesses more wisdom in a given area than the others. At such times, there is a kind of mutual deference that is most prudent. Even the role of senior pastor or lead elder is merely an extension of this principle (see II.E below). Plurality is one of the key means by which elders are held accountable in an ongoing manner. A man who ministers alone is in a precarious position, able to lean on his own understanding too much, and potentially able to walk in secret sins for a length of time. Plurality does not eliminate these dangers, but it does make them less tempting in the normal flow of life. It is possible that a church plant will have a season in which only one elder is ordained. The NT certainly can envision an authentic church without a plurality of elders (e.g., the period of time prior to Acts 14:23). However, we see this as a temporary necessity that is to be remedied as quickly as possible (without making the opposite error of laying hands on too quickly). One remedy is for the sending church elders or the Regional Leader to serve as a functional part of the local eldership until a qualified elder is raised up and ordained. An additional important point is that the second elder, once ordained, need not be full time or financially compensated, at least in the short run. The precedent of a plurality in the NT cannot be an excuse to overlook the requirements of the man who is to be an elder. These are too clear to be overlooked or minimized, and a church will likely suffer more from elders who are unqualified men than it will from having too few elders in office.

D. Bi-Vocational Elders
Elders neednt serve full-time nor be paid staff to be considered true elders. Although they must meet biblical qualifications, they do not need to be seminary or Pastors College graduates. They may serve part-time with or without pay. Although we call such elders bi-vocational elders (the term lay elders is also used) as a convenient way to distinguish them from full-time elders, this in no way communicates a diminished role or importance in the church. The Bible allows us to ordain part-time elders or those who will be unpaid for their service. Christian prudence, the needs of the church, the lack of finances, as well as a desire to achieve plurality with well-qualified elders who are already vocationally employed in other roles are some viable reasons to employ bi-vocational elders. As desirable as this role may be for the health and mission of the church, we should aspire for elders to be paid commensurate to their workload when possible (1 Cor. 9:6-14; Luke 10:7/Matt. 10:10; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17-18). The NT teaches that this is so elders can be free to devote themselves to their ministries. 1 Timothy 5:17-18 makes this clear: Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain, and, the laborer deserves his wages. Paul's first point here has to do with the relative levels of gifting (rule well), scopes of responsibility (especially those who labor in preaching and teaching), and apparently financial compensation (double honor) of elders in a given church. That they are paid seems assumed by the mention of double honor, and especially by the next verse about the laborer deserving his wages. His second point is about the need to compensate the elder financially. He is the ox who should
17

not be muzzled by refusing to compensate him; he is the laborer who deserves his wages (v. 18). To fail to support him financially can limit his ability and is thus muzzling the ox. That is a bad thing according to Paul, for it means appointing him to do the work and then hindering him from doing it. Of course, a church may be unable to fully financially support a pastor for a time. There is nothing that forbids an elder working another job. Additionally, serving bi-vocationally may best serve the needs and mission of the local church depending on the particular elder, his gifting, life-situation, and availability to serve full time. Viable alternatives to full-time pay include providing stipends for preaching and teaching, covering a book allowance, or paying at a part-time level. In some cases, a pastor may simply enjoy being able to serve free of charge. However, if this is not the case and the church is financially able to remunerate him, then the elders should give due consideration to the biblical onus to not muzzle the ox and consider financial compensation. As helpful, wise, and fitting as it may be to employ bi-vocational elders with alternative pay arrangements, there is no clear biblical warrant to withhold pay from an elder merely to create a certain number of unpaid elders for the sake of balancing the amount of paid elders. Some have believed this provides accountability for paid elders who may experience a conflict of interest due to receiving compensation from the church they serve. While the concept of a balance of power is a good thing when it comes to civil government, the Scriptures never teach that a special category of unpaid or lay elders should be appointed for the purpose of balancing the power of the paid elders. A biblical answer to such a need is a plurality of elders. In SG, we also benefit from the role of the Regional Assembly of Elders and a Regional Leader, who provide further accountability to such pluralities. Additionally, a healthy relationship with the entire church along with their responsibility to follow biblical judicial proceedings for errant elders provide further accountability. Given all these considerations, utilizing qualified and gifted bi-vocational elders as full-fledged participants in a churchs eldership can be a very effective way to serve the care and mission of the local church and this union of churches.

E. The Senior Pastor

Use of the Terms Lead Pastor, Lead Elder, or Senior Pastor The role of senior pastor or lead pastor/elder is supportable by biblical precedent and practical wisdom. It is not a biblical office per se and therefore not absolutely required in this polity. Nonetheless, the Bible presents numerous examples of groups in the Bible where a man is or becomes the leader, or at least the spokesman. Whether it is Moses over Israel, heads of tribes and clans in Israel, judges and kings over Israel, Peter over the Twelve apostles, or James in the Jerusalem church, it seems that biblically there is typically a man identified as the leader or spokesman (e.g., Acts 1:15; 15:13ff.). Further, practical wisdom tells us that a group is served when one individual is identified as the primary leader or spokesman, even if he is technically a first among equals. He is an equal among his fellow elders in the exercise of authority, not another class of elder, but his role is distinct in that he serves as a leader of his fellow elders. The lead elder is part of a plurality of elders, and his character and gifting are not necessarily uniformly greater than that of the other men. What is distinct is his measure of gifting and capacity in those areas (teaching, leadership) most central to pastoral leadership. The precise nature of the role of the lead pastor may vary depending on the maturity of an eldership, the range of gifts on the

18

team, the level of specialization on the team, etc. The elders decide who will serve in this capacity (with appropriate input from church members and guiding counsel from other leaders in SG). SG churches have historically and wisely delegated some of the following responsibilities to senior pastors. 1. Providing doctrinal leadership through a prominent teaching role 2. Developing the eldership into a cohesive leadership team 3. Providing pastoral care for the eldership 4. Facilitating decision-making by serving as Chairman of the Board of local elders 5. Identifying and deploying spiritual gifts among the elders 6. Encouraging efficiency 7. Coordinating eldership training 8. Acting as spokesman for the elders

F. Procedure for the Repositioning of the Senior Pastor

1. General Principles 1) Although we affirm both the biblical principles underlying a first among equals and the wisdom of having such a role among the elders of a church, the Senior Pastorate is not a biblical office as such; therefore, the Scriptures do not give us either qualifications or procedures for the installation or repositioning of a Senior Pastor. 2) The title of a Senior Pastor (Lead Elder, Lead Pastor) expresses the recognition that though all elders are equal in responsibilities and authority, they are not necessarily equal in gifting, especially in the gift of leadership. 3) It is often the elder who is the most gifted preacher and leader that is identified as the Senior Pastor. 4) It is ultimately the responsibility of the eldership of a local church to identify and commission each of its members to fulfill tasks and responsibilities as they see fit, including the Senior Pastorate (see II.E). 5) Because of the visibility that a Senior Pastor has, and because of the unique and important role in which he serves with respect to the congregation, repositioning him should be done carefully and according to the procedure outlined below. The following steps are given in an attempt to best protect the Senior Pastors church, his eldership, and his ministry. Procedure 1) If some of the elders think the eldership needs to consider the question of repositioning the Senior Pastor (for reasons other than moral qualifications or heterodoxy), then the matter should be brought to all of the local elders for the purpose of making an evaluation.

19

2) The concerns of the questioning elder(s) should be honestly and clearly spoken and communicated to the entire eldership. Once the eldership agrees that an evaluation is needed, but before any decision has been made, the elders should send a communication to the Regional Leader that outlines their observations and the reason(s) for evaluation of the Senior Pastor. This formalizes the process of the Senior Pastor evaluation. 3) A clearly defined formal plan of evaluation should be established by the local eldership including: a. A clear presentation of the issues precipitating such an evaluation. b. An opportunity for the Senior Pastor to respond to his fellow elders. c. A suitable period of time (at least 30 days) for evaluation of the Senior Pastor in light of the needs of the congregation in order to determine if the elder(s) concerns are legitimate. If applicable, the Senior Pastor should be given time for improvement in areas of concern. d. The seeking of input and advice from elders in the region and the Regional Leader. e. A suitable means of getting input from other local leaders and those within the congregation. 4) A copy of the plan should be sent to the Regional Leader. 5) At the end of the evaluation period, the elders will make their decision based upon the due consideration of the gifts and abilities of the Senior Pastor, his abilities relative to the other elders, and a proper assessment of the needs of the local congregation. While the elders may seek advice from the Regional Leader and other SG elders, the decision ultimately rests with the local elders. 6) The local eldership will communicate in writing their decision to the Regional Leader who will inform the Regional Assembly of Elders. 7) If the decision to reposition the Senior Pastor is made, the one being repositioned has the right to resign with honor if he decides not to remain on the eldership. The Regional Leader and the SG Director of Church Care will facilitate, when possible, his transition to another SG church if he so desires. SG is under no obligation to ensure his placement on another churchs staff or eldership but will make an effort to do so. The church that repositioned the Senior Pastor should make every effort to give appropriate considerations to the departing pastor including severance. Subsequent Appeals 1) If the Senior Pastor believes the local eldership sinned against him, he will have the right to appeal to the Regional Judicial Review Committee. 2) If the Senior Pastor believes the elders did not follow the procedure outlined above, he has the right to appeal to the Regional Judicial Review Committee. 3) If the Judicial Review Committee finds in favor of the eldership, no other appeal will be granted.
20

4) If the Judicial Review Committee finds in favor of the removed Senior Pastor, it may appeal to the eldership to re-do the evaluation, but it does not have the authority to force his reinstatement. Final Disposition 1) A Senior Pastor or other elder who is repositioned, not on the basis of moral qualification or heterodoxy, and chooses to leave the local church leaves with honor, remains in good standing within SG, and thus retains his ordination status. 2) A Senior Pastor, or any other elder who is removed from office, but not on the basis of moral disqualification or heterodoxy, remains in good standing within SG and retains his ordination status. G. Accountability for Pastors Because significant authority is entrusted to elders, it is critical that these men are accountable. They are accountable in several ways. 1. Elders are accountable to God. First and most importantly, elders are appointed to their office ultimately by God: The Holy Spirit has made you overseers (Acts 20:28). This means that they must perform their office with a keen awareness of God's watchful eye on them: I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word (2 Tim. 4:1-2a). Further, they are to perform their duties now in light of a coming judgment: When the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:4). 2. There is protection and accountability built into the ordination process. There is no immunity to sin or temptation this side of our glorification, but we do a great service to the church when we refuse to appoint anyone to this office who does not explicitly fulfill all the prerequisites given in the NT. This is a preemptive measure, but an important one. If we are careless about whom we ordain to the office in the first place, any accountability structures we implement will be of limited value. 3. There is accountability that happens within a biblical plurality of elders. If a church has faithfully appointed a plurality of elders to the office, there is a great accountability that occurs. Some of this accountability will happen through formal, scheduled times of speaking into each others lives; asking about specific areas of obedience must be a part of a healthy plurality. Accountability also happens in the ongoing flow of ministry as sinful patterns emerge in a man's leadership or lifestyle or in isolated incidents that occur before others. A healthy awareness of each others behavior and an expectation of input and observations from others will supplement the formal accountability in a helpful way. Truly, to serve in a plurality of elders involves a commitment to ongoing accountability. 4. There is a critical layer of accountability that comes from the congregation when it brings observations and appeals to elders or charges against elders. Just as the man to be qualified as an elder must have a general openness to input, so must the elder remain open to the observations of those in the church. Fools despise wisdom and instruction (Prov. 1:7). At times an elder might even be engaged in a matter of personal sin against another person in the church, one that requires a Matthew 18:15-20 process of rebuke,
21

repentance, and reconciliation. A critical point of accountability is what Paul labels a charge against an elder (1 Tim. 5:19). He is not specific about whether this accusation comes from an apostle or a member of the congregation or another elder, but we should probably assume that all three are possibilities. A member of a congregation must be enabled to pursue such accusations against leaders. Without this layer of accountability, the possibility of some version of tyrannical leadership is easy to imagine. Further, denying such due process to the congregation opens us up to a situation where a person could observe an elder failing in his office and be unable to act on it. Of course, the right to do this does not mean that they can do this without any restraints (IV.D). 5. There is accountability that happens through the broader body of Sovereign Grace churches. In all of the ways specified in this Book of Church Order, elders in a local church are accountable to the other elders in their Region and ultimately to all the elders in SG. Regional Assemblies with their Judicial Review Committees and the Council of Elders, along with the SG Court of Appeal, provide accountability for the life and doctrine of elders in SG.

H. The Ordination of Elders

1. Introduction Before a man is ordained to the office of elder he has been first called, gifted, and chosen through divine initiative (Acts 20:28, Eph. 4:11). In SG appointing a man to the office of elder involves a collaborative effort between the elders and members of a local church and the Regional Assembly of Elders. The purpose of a process for ordination is simply to appoint men to this office who resemble the NT criteria for the office (especially 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). We are not omniscient and do not know the future, but a process helps us not to miss obvious deficiencies in a man who desires this office. 2. Feedback throughout the process During the ordination process, members of the candidates church are given opportunity to submit in writing their observations, affirmation, or critique of the man in question. This is not to propagate gossip and slander but to allow opportunity to stop the process if there is information the elders lack in evaluating the man. Additionally, affirmation will help confirm the selection of the candidate. Such feedback is an important opportunity for the congregation to assist in the ordination process. The feedback of members of the candidates church will not be understood as a binding vote on the ordination of the candidate but may be a deciding factor in his qualification. It will be up to the local eldership to handle the feedback as they deem most appropriate. The candidates church may decide to utilize some or all of the following practices to help ensure full participation of the congregation in this very important decision. 1) Teaching the congregation about the biblical basis for their affirmation in this process and the sobriety of the task. 2) Making a formal announcement of the candidacy of the potential elder to the congregation at the beginning of the ordination process.
22

3) Announcing the qualifications and charging the church to soberly consider their role in affirmation. 4) Issuing a written form for official feedback. 5) Soliciting personal letters or other written feedback from congregants. 6) Obtaining formal written feedback from all members. 7) Arranging personal interviews with congregants to discuss their feedback and solicit further input if necessary. 8) Publicizing the results of the affirmation of the congregation. 9) Announcing the close of the affirmation process ahead of time. 10) Preparing the church for their vows of affirmation of the candidate during the ordination service. 3. The Basic Process for Ordination Each church eldership has the responsibility and authority to select, test, and ordain future elders in a manner of their choosing. What follows is a recommended, but not mandated, process. What is required is that each elder successfully complete the SG ordination requirements, including subscribing to the SG Statement of Faith and pledging to adhere to the stipulated rules of the SG Book of Church Order. Once the Regional Assembly approves the elder candidate, the local church then ordains and installs the elder. a. The elders decide to choose a man who is qualified as much as they can determine. The local eldership bears primary responsibility for examining the life and doctrine of candidates for pastoral ministry in order to determine whether the candidate meets the biblical character qualifications (cf. II.A.3) and fully agrees with the SG Statement of Faith (cf. II.H.3.f). Elders will solicit input from those who know the man and pay close attention to his current service. Such indicators are not infallible, but they do help establish the mans fitness for pastoral ministry. Appropriate counsel may be sought from the SG Regional Leader or other elders in the region. b. Input from all church officers and congregants. In this initial stage of evaluation, input will be solicited from the elders, deacons, and congregation on an ad hoc basis. The elders will together establish if the man is qualified as far as can be seen. c. The congregation is informed and input is invited. Once the elders are supportive of the man for pastoral ministry, they will notify the church and invite their further input. While it is primarily the elders of the local church who select and test candidates for pastoral ministry, the Regional Assembly of Elders, its Ordination Committee, and the congregation also have a vital role in the ordination process. In order for some elder qualifications to be determined, congregational input is important. Even though Titus was given the singular charge of appointing elders in Crete (Titus 1:5), the appointment process of potential overseers would seem to require the testimony of other
23

believers in order to determine who was blameless and above reproach, hospitable, not pugnacious, not greedy for gain, whose children were not open to the charge of debauchery, etc. (Titus 1:5-9). Further, attestation to many of these leadership qualifications seems to require proof over a period of time by a local church (1 Tim. 3:10). Therefore, the active involvement of the congregation is vital in the confirmation of an elders call and, at a minimum, should require extensive informal interaction with the congregation regarding the suitability of the elder candidate. d. Pastors College Candidates for the office of elder preferably will attend the SGM Pastors College or a functional equivalent. However, this is not an absolute requirement, and candidates will only be required to meet standards set by the local church along with passing the requirements for ordination under the agency of the Regional Assembly of Elders as specified herein. e. Pastoral Internship Prior to ordination candidates should ideally serve as pastoral interns. The length and nature of this internship will be decided by the local eldership. f. Successful Completion of SG ordination requirements Only the eldership of a local church can ordain new elders (cf. I.C). Therefore, the local eldership bears primary responsibility for selecting candidates for pastoral ministry and examining their life and doctrine in order to determine whether the candidate meets the biblical character qualifications (cf. II.A.3) and fully agrees with the SG Statement of Faith. However, since the quality and unity of our elders is fundamental to the nature and health of our union, a common commitment to the standards for elders necessitates that all elders in SG churches be approved according to the standards of this Book of Church Order through the agency of the Regional Assembly of Elders (cf. I.I). Ordination and discipline in any SG church is valid in and recognized by all other SG churches. The pastoral candidate must complete all of the SG requirements for ordination before his actual ordination. These include the written and oral ordination exams administered by the Regional Ordination Committee and approval by a simple majority of the Regional Assembly of Elders, after any necessary and relevant questioning. As stipulated by III.A.2.a.v, the Regional Elders or Ordination Committee must demonstrate just cause to reject a candidate who has been previously vetted by his local church and has passed the required ordination examinations. Just cause consists exclusively of heterodoxy (i.e., deviation from the SG Statement of Faith) or scandalous or serious sin. Prior to taking ordination vows, the candidate must inform his local eldership and the Regional Assembly of Elders of any and all reservations or disagreements he has with the SG Statement of Faith. (He shall put these exceptions down in writing; each elders exceptions shall be kept on record with the local eldership, the Regional Assembly of Elders, and Sovereign Grace Ministries). The local eldership shall first investigate the exception before presenting the candidate to the Regional Assembly of Elders. The Regional Assembly of Elders shall determine the significance of the candidates scruples. If the exception is a trivial semantic scruple and not a substantive difference with any doctrine in the Statement of Faith, then the candidate may subscribe to the Statement of Faith. However, if it is determined that the candidate substantially disagrees with any of the doctrines of the Statement of Faith, he
24

may not subscribe. If the candidates exceptions to the Statement of Faith prevent him from subscribing to it, the Ordination Committee shall recommend to him a course of study on the relevant doctrines, if the candidate is willing, in the hopes that his scruples might be overcome. If the Regional Assembly of Elders approves the candidate, then the candidate shall subscribe to the Statement of Faith and submit to the Book of Church Order by signing two copies of the following statement: I declare sincerely before God that I believe that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the SG Statement of Faith fully agree with the Scriptures, and I own that Statement as the statement and confession of my faith. I promise to teach and defend these doctrines in public and private. I promise further that if in the future I come to have reservations about any of these doctrines, I will share these reservations with my eldership and the Regional Assembly of Elders. I submit without exception to the explicitly mandated polity practices of the SG Book of Church Order. I affirm that the form of government contained in the SG Book of Church Order is a wise and suitable application of Scriptural principles. One copy will remain in the personal safekeeping of the candidate and one copy will be sent to Sovereign Grace Ministries for archiving. Photocopies of this signed document will be sent to the Regions Ordination Committee and to the Director of Church Care. g. Date Set for Ordination Once the man is established as qualified for this office and the church desires to appoint him to this office, a date is set for the ordination service and is announced to the church. h. Final Written Feedback Written feedback is allowable throughout the evaluation and ordination process but should be finalized at least thirty days in advance of the ordination service. i. The Ordination Service Local church elders will be present at the ordination service, as well as the Regional Leader (or his representative) who will officially commend the candidate. During the ordination service, the presiding elder(s) will include the following questions for the candidate to answer in the affirmative: 1) Do you promise to shepherd the flock of God not under compulsion but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not domineering over those in your charge but being an example to the flock? (1 Pet. 5:1-4) 2) Do you promise to faithfully guard the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you an overseer, and do you promise to protect that flock from false teaching, division, and dissension? (Acts 20:28-31) 3) Do you promise to care for the flock of God, not as a hireling, but as an under shepherd of the Great Shepherd, caring for his sheep as the precious ones for whom he died? (Ezek. 34)

25

4) Do you, in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and this congregation, promise to preach the Word in season and out of season, and do you promise to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with complete patience, enduring suffering, while remaining sober-minded in all of your preaching and teaching, and will you do the work of an evangelist among those whom God has given you charge? (2 Tim. 4:1-5) 5) Do you declare sincerely before God that you believe all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the SG Statement of Faith fully agree with the Scriptures? Do you own that Statement as the statement and confession of your faith? And do you promise to teach and defend these doctrines in public and private? 6) Do you promise further that if in the future you come to have reservations about any of these doctrines, you will share these reservations with your eldership and the Regional Assembly of Elders? 7) Do you promise to keep a close watch on yourself and to walk humbly before others, to be self-suspicious of your own motives, to invite criticism from others, and to make yourself accountable to those whom God has put in your life? 8) Do you submit without exception to the explicitly mandated practices of the SG Book of Church Order, affirming that that form of government is a wise and suitable application of Scriptural principles? 9) Do you promise to walk in a manner worthy of the gospel and to show yourself in all respects, in action and in speech, to be a model of good works, integrity, and dignity so that neither the church, nor our Savior Jesus Christ, nor the gospel may be brought into reproach? (Titus 2:7-8) 10) Do you promise to continually seek the gifts of the Spirit that you might serve God's people, not in the energy of the flesh, but in the power of the Holy Spirit and to carry out your ministry without fear of man? The candidate having answered in the affirmative, the presiding elder will ask the church the following, expecting an affirmative reply: 1) Do you, the people of ___________ church, receive ________________ as your pastor? 2) Do you promise to receive the word of truth from him with meekness and love and to submit to him in the due biblical exercise of his leadership? 3) Do you engage to supply him with sufficient material maintenance and to furnish him with whatever you may see needful for the promotion of the gospel and for his comfort among you? 4) Do you promise to encourage him in his labors and to assist his ministry and leadership for your spiritual edification, the evangelization of the lost, and the promotion of Gods glory? All the local elders and the Regional Leader will lay hands on the candidate and pray for him. The process of laying on of hands is a public affirmation and recognition that this individual has been set apart for gospel ministry, and that the ongoing mercy and

26

attendance of the Spirit of God will be necessary to satisfactorily fulfill the requirements of ministry. 4. Elders That Have Not Been Ordained Under SGM Elders not previously ordained by SGM but ordained by a SG member church by the date of the implementation of this polity will be recognized as duly ordained on a case-by-case basis, subject to the review of the Regional Ordination Committee and the approval of the Regional Assembly of Elders. 5. The Duration of the Office of Overseer It is assumed that when a man is ordained to this office, he will serve as long as he is qualified and it is in the best interest of the church and his family. In other words, there is no set term on an elder's service. Term limits seem to be a contradiction to the way that God gifts his people and the example he gives us in the NT. 6. Churches without Elders As an expression of our unity and commitment to mutual care, if a local church is without any elders (e.g., because it has only been recently adopted, or because all of its elders have resigned, been disavowed, or died), the responsibilities and authority of the local eldership shall devolve upon the Regional Assembly of Elders. Under the coordinating direction of the Regional Leader, the members of the Regional Assembly shall supply the pulpit and fulfill the churchs pastoral needs. In close consultation with the congregation (in accordance with II.H.2-3 and II.J), the Regional Assembly will select an elder for the church by a simple majority vote. The Regional Assembly of Elders should honor the churchs previous practices concerning the affirmation of elders. At that time, all of the responsibilities and authority of the churchs local eldership shall revert from the Regional Assembly back to the elder. 7. Taking New Exceptions to the Statement of Faith Any time that an elder registers new exceptions to the Statement of Faith, the Regional Assembly must examine them and rule upon them as described in II.H.3.f. 8. Transfer of Ordination Status across Regions Ordination and discipline in any SG church is valid and recognized by all other SG churches. An elder who accepts a call to serve at another church need not, therefore, re-take the ordination exams or repeat any other part of the ordination process. However, when an ordained SG elder is called to serve a church in another Region, his registered exceptions to the Statement of Faith shall be reviewed by the receiving Regional Assembly of Elders. The receiving Regional Assembly shall rule upon the exceptions as described in II.H.3.f., and if they rule that the elder substantially disagrees with any doctrine of the Statement of Faith, they may refuse to receive the elder into the Region.

I. The Office of Deacon

1. Biblical Basis There are numerous passages in the NT that use the Greek term diakonos and its cognates (Rom. 16:1, Eph. 6:21, Col. 1:7, Col. 4:7, Phil. 1:1, Acts 6:1-6). The word deacon (diakonos) simply means servant or minister. In one sense, all Gods people are called as ministers or deacons. However, there seems to be an official role for some to share that is designated with the title of deacon. Although many passages give us a sense that a deacon is a mature servant
27

of the local church, the clearest passage on the qualifications and call of deacons is 1 Timothy 3:8-13. Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (ESV) 2. Characteristics of a Deacon The qualifications for a deacon parallel those for an elder in almost every way. However, he does not need to have the ability to teach, nor is the qualification to deal gently and hospitably with others mentioned. This likely reflects that the deacon is not expected to have the same intensity of interaction with people required of an elder.4 However, this office is not merely one that deals with the physical needs of the church; most of these requirements relate to character and maturity, important characteristics for a man given a spiritual charge.5 Deacons must hold to the gospel with integrity, they must be proven, and they must be examples in home life. While all believers are called as deacons in the general sense, official deacons must set a pace for maturity in Christ. a. Dignified (1 Tim. 3:8) Dignified connotes a sobriety of purpose and earnestness of conduct worthy of respect and winsome to others that brings honor to Christ and the office of deacon. b. Not double-tongued (1 Tim. 3:8) The deacon is to speak in a sincere and holy manner. He is not to engage in gossip, slander, or deceit. c. Not addicted to much wine (1 Tim. 3:8) The self-mastery of previous characteristics makes it clear that a deacon should not be mastered by wine, drugs, or any other substance, but Paul makes it explicit here. We might add other potentially addictive types of activities such as gambling, pornography, computer gaming, or any activity that has overflowed its boundaries in the man's life. d. Not greedy for dishonest gain (1 Tim. 3:8) There are different ways to be disqualified because a man is a lover of money. It can mean a general greed that motivates someone to exploit the church for his own financial gain (Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:2), or worse, to steal from it (Eph. 4:28). It can also mean a covetousness in the man's life that is really a form of idolatry (Col. 3:5), or it could simply be a continual discontentment with what God has provided for him (Phil. 4:10-13; Heb. 13:5). All of these are temptations for everyone, but when they are characteristic of a man, he should not serve as a deacon.
Knight 167.

4 5

J. R. W. Stott, (1996). Guard the Truth: The message of 1 Timothy & Titus. The Bible Speaks Today (99). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

28

e. Must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience (1 Tim. 3:9) Deacons are to hold to the Christian faith with fidelity of doctrine and life in such a way that they can operate with a clear conscience, not condemned for heresy or immoral conduct. f. Tested first...prove themselves blameless (1 Tim. 3:10) Deacons are to be tested before they are selected for service in the office of deacon. They must be tested for character, doctrine, and conduct in a probationary period. If they qualify according to the biblical standards in a blameless way, then they can serve. g. Husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:12) The requirement here does not speak to whether a man has been divorced or remarried, but, if he is married, speaks to a general faithfulness and sexual purity in his current marriage. The point is to examine his character, and a man's marriage reveals his character. h. Managing their children and their own households well (1 Tim. 3:12) The key word used in Timothy is manage, a term that means to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head of.6 A man who manages his household well is obedient to the commandments related to his role as a father and husband: He is a husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25-33), he is living with her in an understanding way (1 Pet. 3:7), and he is a father who is bringing his children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). In other words, there is a pattern of loving discipleship and gracious leadership in his management of the home. 3. The Role of a Deacon Scripture does not provide great detail on the function of deacons. Some hold that the office is devoted primarily to meeting the temporal needs of the church. Others hold that the office involves any service that frees up the pastors to govern the church and devote themselves to the ministry of the Word and prayer (Acts 6:2-4). Either view is acceptable in SG. The character requirements in 1 Timothy 3 indicate the spiritual maturity the role demands and underline its significance for the life of the church (cf. Phil. 1:1). Deacons are not required to be able to teach, nor are they given the responsibility of church governance; those roles fall to elders/pastors/overseers. However, deacons can greatly bolster and support the role of the elders and the health of the congregation. They can do this by assuming responsibility for the leadership and care of the congregation in many areas in order to free elders to better lead in the ministry of the Word and prayer. Additionally, their involvement can help provide additional communication pathways with the congregation vital to a healthy, thriving church. This role may serve similarly to that of a ruling elder in some polities, albeit minus an official governing responsibility. Although we wholeheartedly affirm the vital importance of the ministry of women in our churches, individual churches may differ on the acceptability of having women serve in the role of deacon. If a church decides to appoint women deacons, it is essential that the responsibilities of that role not violate other Scriptural commands that define and delineate the respective roles of men and women in the home and the church, particularly those that prohibit a woman from teaching or having authority over a man in the home or church (1 Tim. 2:12; cf. 1 Cor. 11:3).

BDAG, proistmi.

29

J. The Role of the Congregation

1. Introduction The following outline of the role of the congregation is not a comprehensive and exhaustive description of this essential aspect of church life. This Book of Church Order is oriented more toward the particulars of the exercise of church authority and not the other essential aspects of the life of a congregation. Accordingly and due to a desire to be economical this discussion is restricted to a limited number of short sections that directly impinge upon polity. Nevertheless, this material is given to provide a proper context to the exercise of church authority so that key roles of a congregation might be established. It is important to distinguish between the vital roles and responsibilities of the entire congregation in the life and decision-making of the church versus granting an authority to the entire congregation to govern the local church. It is a noble biblical desire to ensure that all members of a church are properly exercising their gifts and contributing their voice to the life and decision-making of a church (cf. Acts 6:3, Acts 15:22, 1 Cor. 12:12-13:13, Matt. 18:15-20, 1 Tim. 5:19). Sadly, it is possible for pastors to domineer those in their charge (cf. 1 Peter 5:3, 2 John 9b, Acts 20:29). Therefore, it is imperative that pastors avoid leading in a domineering way or creating a church culture that does not foster vibrant congregational participation in the life of the church and in key decision-making for the whole church. However, accomplishing the goal of full biblical participation of the entire congregation does not mean that final governing authority must be handed over to the entire congregation. Participation and final governing authority are separate issues and must not be confused if we are to understand and apply the biblical delineation of particular roles and offices in a local church (cf. Eph. 4:11-12, 1 Pet. 5:2, Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim. 5:17). While a healthy church will enjoy robust communication, cooperation, interdependence, and respect among all its members, including elders, deacons, and other congregants, this is not the same as experiencing an equal authority or responsibility to govern among all its members. Ultimately, elders must exercise their God-given authority in leading their local churches, albeit a biblically circumscribed, selfsacrificing, and humble authority (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-3, John 10:11b, 2 Tim 2:24, 25). A congregation must correspondingly submit to its elders (cf. 1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb 13:17). Such leadership and submission must be in the context of a vibrant, healthy, respectful, and fruitful participation for all members of the church. This section seeks to fill out a biblical understanding and practice for congregational participation within a conviction that elders are granted authority from God to govern the local church and must uniquely give account to God for their local church (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-4; Heb. 13:17; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 3:10-17; etc.). 2. Congregational Equality Church members do not have an inferior status to elders but are equal in standing before Christ and fellow members of his body. All members of the churchelders and congregantsare sheep under the authority of the Chief Shepherd and posses the same privileges: adoption by God, redemption by Christ, and sealing by the same Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is no fundamental distinction among believers in Christs body. All Christianselders and congregants alikehave equal access to God through Christ (Gal. 3:28), are priests of God (1 Pet. 2:9), possess the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts (Acts 2:17-18; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 1:22), receive illumination from the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:6-16), and enjoy all other spiritual blessings in Christ (Eph. 1:3ff.). All believerselders and congregants alikehave
30

access to Gods Word and stand under its authority. As a result, the historical distinction between clergy and laity is an unbiblical idea that creates an illegitimate dichotomy within the body of Christ. Each member plays an important role in the mission of the church. All Christians are indwelt by the Spirit of God, all are children of God, and all belong to the royal priesthood. Believers are called to a shared life together, involving fellowship, discipline, and care. While the church as a whole does not have responsibility for the governance of the church, each member contributes greatly to the health or demise of the church. The rule of elders in no way contradicts the prerogatives and liberties given to all who are in Christ. 3. Congregational Solidarity Because elders are fundamentally a part of the congregation themselves, the relationship between elders and the congregation is meant to be one of joyful unity. Although elders must meet certain character qualifications, those qualifications are traits commanded of all believers. Elders have a responsibility to teach, but they, like the congregation, stand under the authority of Gods Word. Elders are to proclaim and guard the gospel, but all believers are to stand firm in one spirit and strive together for the faith of the gospel (Phil. 1:27). Pastoral instruction and leadership should seek to win a congregations glad affirmation and forge a congregational solidarity through its manner of leadership. Such pastoral leadership includes: a. Humble instruction b. Informative communication c. Alerting the church to evidences of grace d. Educating the church as to the fruit of its life, serving, and giving e. Involving the church appropriately in the leaderships thinking and plans f. Proactive deployment of people according to their gifts (Eph. 4:11ff.) 4. Congregational Responsibility Because of the fundamental equality of believers, each member plays an important role in the mission of the church. Church members are called to a shared life together, involving fellowship, discipline, and care. Although the entire church does not have responsibility for the governance of the church, each member contributes greatly to the health or demise of the church. The rule of elders in no way contradicts the prerogatives and liberties given to all who are in Christ. Church members participate, under the leadership of the elders, in the joyful welcoming of new members and the excommunication of unfaithful members. The congregation is involved in the evaluation and affirmation of eldership candidates and has a responsibility to bring charges against a leader in serious sin. All believers are responsible to reject false teachers and unbiblical leadership. All believers have the right to approach God freely through Christ and to study the Scriptures for themselves. All believers are gifted by the Holy Spirit for active ministry in the church. Of course, the congregation must also recognize the value and role of elders in the church. We should pray for our leaders, maintain the unity of the Spirit with them, and joyfully submit to their biblical leadership.

31

At various points in the NT, the authors not only address the leaders of the churches to whom they write but the entire church as well. Consider Pauls letter to the Galatians. Paul is writing not only to the Galatian elders but to the whole church. He calls the church to be responsible to evaluate the teaching that comes from the pulpit. They are not to passively accept anything that comes out of the preacher's mouth but are to hold it up to the light of Christ and test it by his Word. If the teaching fails the test, the whole church is responsible to quit listening to the teachereven if that teacher is an apostle like Paul himself.
6

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel 7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-9, ESV)

In 2 Timothy, Paul lays the responsibility for the presence of false teachers clearly at the foot of the congregation. They are the ones responsible for accumulating to themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires (4:3). They are the ones who do not endure sound doctrine, who want their ears tickled, and who consequently turn from truth to myths. They are the ones ultimately responsible for allowing their own desires to determine the kind of teachers they seek out for themselves. Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions. (2 Tim. 4:2-3, ESV) Although authority in the local church is given to elders, they are not to be insulated from the congregations appropriate observations and concerns and even responsibility to ensure the fidelity of their leaders. Because Scripture affirms the right of church members to bring legitimate allegations concerning an elder (1 Tim. 5:19-21), a churchs local polity in conjunction with the SG Rules of Discipline (which follow) outline the relevant policies and procedures by which such allegations can be evaluated. Clear communication about such avenues of recourse will foster both a healthy accountability and an atmosphere of trust. Additionally, the roles and responsibilities of the congregation may be worked out in SG churches by the following pursuits: a. Seeking input from the congregation for any pastoral candidate for ordination. b. Seeking input from the congregation for any deacon candidate for installation. c. Creating a church environment where there are vital relationships, active discussion, and cooperation between the elders and the whole church with a clear, comprehensive, and welcoming feedback system. d. Providing regular forums of communication and interaction as appropriate. e. Establishing and training the church in the use of the channels for feedback and redress outlined by local church policy and the policy and procedures of the SG Book of Church Order.
32
2

f. Utilizing a formal and public affirmation process for key church decisions such as installing elders and deacons, approving an annual budget, making major changes in church by-laws, implementing major changes in church ministries, enforcing church discipline, and accepting church members. Such affirmation is permissible as long it is not technically binding (see II.K), does not nullify the authority of the elders to govern the church nor contradict this Book of Church Order. A dynamic relationship of mutual care and respect and the leadership of godly elders is necessary for a healthy church polity. No church polity will work without the necessary qualifying character on the part of the pastors and the correspondent faith-filled submission of the congregation. 5. Congregational Submission Within the general equality of all believers, God orders and gives leaders to his church. The congregations submission to Christ finds expression in its submission to godly elders (1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:5). All ministry to the church is ultimately Christs own ministry and, as gifts from God, elders are an extension of Christs ministry to his people. Jesus is the apostle (Heb. 3:1), the prophet (Matt. 13:57), the teacher (Matt. 10:24-25), the shepherd (John 10:11; 1 Pet. 5:4), the evangelist (Luke 4:18), the preacher (Matt. 4:17), and the servant (Mark 10:45). All leaders in the church carry on Jesus own ministry. This is a voluntary submission which must not be coerced and which assumes that elders are serving as faithful examples and are faithfully leading the congregation in obedience to Gods Word. Gods Word circumscribes the elders authority. Only Scripture can bind the conscience of the Christian, and we forfeit our authority when we deviate from Gods Word. Biblical texts that specifically address the notion of authority with respect to the congregation and its leaders affirm elder rule and congregational submission. a. Elders rule/govern/manage (prostmi): 1 Tim. 3:4-5; 5:17; 1 Thess. 5:12; Rom. 12:8 b. Elders lead (hgeomai): Heb. 13:7, 17, 24 c. Elders exercise oversight (episkopos; episkope): Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:2 d. The congregation respects (lit. know: oida7): 1 Thess. 5:12 e. The congregation esteems (lit. think, consider: hgeisthai8): 1 Thess. 5:13 f. The congregation obeys (peith): Heb. 13:17 g. The congregation submits (hypeik): Heb. 13:17 b. The congregation imitates (mimeomai): Heb. 13:7; 1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 3:7, 9

7 8

The verb to know has the sense here of take note of with a view to respecting and appreciating. G.K. Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 160.

The combination of this verb consider with the adverb quite beyond all measure (hyperekperissou) yields the sense reflected in the NIV. The Thessalonians should think about them in the highest way possible, and so hold them in highest regard. Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 250-251.

33

K. Local Church Bylaws

In keeping with these principles, although a church may have formal congregational feedback, no congregational vote shall be regarded as binding in any SG church. While full and vibrant congregational participation is necessary for healthy church life, it does not necessitate congregational governance of the local church. Introducing binding congregational voting would introduce a conflicting practice of church governance that would eventually have to be resolved by resting final church authority either with the congregation or with its elders. Although we respect the many churches that practice church governance that puts the final authority in the hands of congregants, we believe it will be more consistent, more fruitful, and less problematic within our polity overall to rest final authority with the elders. We believe practicing elder rule in conjunction with vibrant congregational participation is the best application of biblical polity. Therefore, to be consistent with this conviction and practice, we have deemed that local church bylaws of SG churches must address the following key items. 1. The constitution and bylaws of each local church must be fully consistent with the general principles and prescriptions of the SG Book of Church Order. Each church eldership will be allowed two years from the date of their signing of the Partnership Agreement (or letter of intent) to bring their church bylaws into conformity with the SG Book of Church Order. 2. The eldership of each local church has sole authority to write or change the local churchs constitution and bylaws. 3. The Regional Judicial Review Committee may examine the consistency of a local churchs bylaws with the Book of Church Order if the Committee deems it necessary. If the Committee finds that a local churchs bylaws are inconsistent with the Book of Church Order, and if after thorough discussion the local eldership refuses to change the bylaws accordingly, then this refusal may become grounds for pursuing a course of action as described in IV.E.2.j-k.

34

III. EXTRA-LOCAL POLITY

A. Regional Assemblies of Elders
1. What is a Region? a. A Region is a group of five to twenty SG churches within a designated geographical area. b. The Regional Assembly of Elders consists of all the elders of the local churches in a given Region (although at most five elders from each church shall be voting members). It is the primary place of support, care, accountability, and cooperation in mission outside of the local church. The responsibility for the mutual care and support of churches within a Region is not merely given a single man but rather falls to the entire Regional Assembly of Elders as a body. c. All Regions will have until June 30, 2013, to realign under the advice of the Leadership Team, giving us four months before our 2013 fall meeting of the Council of Elders. d. Regions will be organized on the basis of geographical considerations in the states and provinces of North America. This will be facilitated by the Director of Church Care and the Director of Church Planting and Missions. e. International Regions will also be formed. This will be facilitated by the Director of Church Care and the Director of Church Planting and Missions. In cases where an international church desires to join a North American Region due to relationship or geographic isolation, it may do so with the approval of a majority of the pastors in that Region. f. Any realignment of a Region or additions to Regions must be approved by a majority vote of the pastors within the current Region. g. A quorum consists of at least half of the voting members of the Regional Assembly of Elders. A quorum must be present for all binding votes. 2. Responsibilities of the Regional Assemblies of Elders Although all manner of informal fellowship, cooperation, and mutual care among the churches and elders of a Regional Assembly are encouraged, the official prerogatives of the Regional Assemblies of Elders are strictly limited to the following areas. a. Approval of all candidates for eldership i) Only the eldership of a local church can ordain new elders (cf. I.C). Therefore, the local eldership bears primary responsibility for examining the life and doctrine of candidates for pastoral ministry in order to determine whether the candidate meets the biblical character qualifications (cf. II.A.3) and fully agrees with the SG Statement of Faith. However, the elder candidate must be examined and approved by the Regional Assembly of Elders and its Ordination Committee before he may be ordained in the local church (cf. I.I; II.H.3.f). ii) Ordination examinations will be standardized within all SG Regions. The Leadership Team of SGM will be charged with compiling ordination exams for use by the Regional Assemblies of Elders after such exams have been approved by the Council of Elders and Regional Assemblies of Elders (III.B.3.h.i-ii).

35

iii) The Regions Ordination Committee (see III.A.2.g.i.1) shall administer the written and oral exams to the candidate (II.H.3.f). iv) If the candidate passes the written and oral exams, the Ordination Committee shall present the candidate to the Regional Assembly of Elders with its recommendation. The Regional Elders may question the candidate concerning his doctrine or life as the Assembly deems necessary. After questioning, the Regional Assembly will vote on whether the candidate may be ordained. A simple majority is sufficient for approval (see II.H.3.f). v) The Regional Elders or Ordination Committee must demonstrate just cause to reject a candidate who has been previously vetted by his local church and has passed the required ordination examinations. Just cause must consist exclusively of either heterodoxy (i.e., deviation from the SG Statement of Faith) or scandalous or serious sin (see II.H.3.f.) vi) As per II.H.8, when a SG elder from outside the Region is called to serve at a local church within the Region, the Regional Assembly of Elders must review the elders exceptions to the Statement of Faith and determine their significance. vii) See section II on Local Elders, especially II.H.3.f.

b. Adjudications within the Region i) Each Regional Assembly of Elders will appoint a qualified sitting Judicial Review Committee that is trained and equipped in ecclesiastical law and procedure. This Judicial Review Committee has its prescribed authority detailed in Section IV.E.2. ii) Each Regional Judicial Review Committee will consist of five to seven elders, preferably from different churches, only three of whom will serve on any single case. This is to provide for enough Judicial Review Committee members to avoid conflicts of interest and allow for necessary recusals. iii) This Judicial Review Committee will hear cases relating to the discipline of a congregant (IV.C, IV.E.2.c) or elder (IV.D.4, IV.D.5.f, IV.D.6.c, IV.D.11, IV.E.2.d-e) that are appealed from a local church within the Region.

iv) If necessary, the members of this Judicial Review Committee will supply members
for a local Panel to try charges brought against elders. If no local elders are available to serve on a Panel, the Judicial Review Committee will assume jurisdiction (cf. IV.B.1.b-c).

v) This Judicial Review Committee will be a place of appeal for any elder who is
removed by a local Panel (cf. IV.D.5.f, IV.D.11, IV.E.2.e). vi) This Judicial Review Committee may also hear and adjudicate, if it deems them credible, any complaints or grievances against a local eldership by a member of a local church within the Region (IV.E.2.i.ii-iii). vii) From among the members of the Judicial Review Committees, the SG Nominating Committee will nominate and SG Council of Elders will confirm the members of the SG Court of Appeal (for the confirmation process, see III.B.3.d; the Court of Appeal
36

is explained in IV.F). The intention of these selections is to provide the best adjudicators to serve on the Court of Appeal. viii) See section IV.E, Regional Judicial Review Committees. c. Discipline of an Eldership within the Region i) A censure is an official reprimand of erring parties, a statement of rebuke or disapproval. It is intended to clarify relevant concerns, to produce repentance, and to protect the broader church. Censures are one expression of the doctrinal and moral accountability that the local churches of the NT enjoyed among themselves. Censure provides a method of warning and restoring the wayward, short of removal. This promotes the glory of God and the health of SG churches. Censure is not intended to tear down the church, but rather to build up and restore the church. Reprimands of this nature should be given in a spirit of Christian love, with impartiality, sobriety, and a concern for the glory of Christ in the church. ii) A SG churchs eldership may be censured by the Regional Assembly of Elders if it is determined that the elders of that church have persistently strayed from the SG Statement of Faith or Book of Church Order or have conducted themselves in an egregiously sinful manner (see III.G, IV.E.2.i.iii-v). iii) If an eldership does not respond to censure, the Regional Assembly of Elders may revoke its approval of the ordination of those elders. SG thereby ceases to recognize those men as elders. The Regional Assembly of Elders will assume pastoral responsibility for the churchs members (as described in II.H.6). On the disavowal of an eldership, see IV.E.2.j. iv) Every SG church eldership will have the right of biblical due process in the case of censure or removal (IV.E.2.i.v). d. Church Planting The Regional Assembly of Elders administrates SG church planting within the Region in order to wisely dispense shared financial resources and maintain a unified, cohesive strategy for advancing the mission within a given geographical area. The SGM Director of Church Planting and Missions will assist Regions in church planting, bringing expertise, experience, and initiative to this task. i) Working in conjunction with the SGM Director of Church Planting & Missions and his committee, the Regional Assembly of Elders will have the responsibility to identify and approve, by a simple majority vote, all locations for SG church plants within the Region. ii) Although the Regional Assembly of Elders must approve every SG church plant (i.e., one utilizing SG funds and becoming an SG church from its inception) by a simple majority vote, it may delegate exploratory work to its Regional Church Planting Committee (see III.A.2.g.i.3) or to the SGM Director of Church Planting & Missions. iii) If a church desires to plant a church that will not be part of SG and will not utilize SG funds, it is free to do so without the involvement or approval of the Regional

37

Assembly of Elders. e. Church Adoptions i) Working with the Leadership Team, churches requesting adoption into SG will be identified and examined by the Regional Church Planting Committee. Upon completion of the evaluation by the Regional Church Planting committee and prior to voting on the churchs adoption, the Church Planting committee will present to the Regional Assembly of Elders the findings of their evaluation in writing, including doctrinal compatibility and the churchs ability to participate in SGs mission. ii) Prior to voting on the churchs adoption, each of the existing elders from the adopted church must be approved by the Regional Assembly of Elders by a simple majority vote. iii) The candidate church elders must each sign the Partnership Agreement, which includes subscription to the SG Statement of Faith and submission to the Book of Church Order. The elders of the joining church must each write down an explanation of any reservations they have about the SG Statement of Faith. Each elders exceptions shall be kept on record with the local eldership, with the Regional Assembly of Elders, and with Sovereign Grace Ministries. The Regional Assembly of Elders must review the recorded exceptions of the joining elders and rule on their significance. If the Regional Assembly rules that an exception is a trivial semantic scruple and not a substantive difference with any doctrine in the Statement of Faith, then the elder may subscribe to the Statement of Faith. But if the Regional Assembly rules that the elder substantially disagrees with any of the doctrines of the Statement of Faith, he may not subscribe to the Statement of Faith and therefore may not be ordained in SG. iv) The candidate church elders must be reviewed for transfer and confirmation of ordination by the Ordination Committee. The Ordination Committee will make a recommendation to the Regional Assembly of Elders for or against the transfer of each elders ordination status. The Regional Assembly of Elders will then confirm or deny, by simple majority vote, the ordination of each candidate church elder. The Regional Assembly may require the elders to pass the SG Ordination Standards and Exams if it judges this prudent. v) If a church without elders seeks adoption in SG, then if the Region votes to adopt it, the church will come under the pastoral care of the Regional Assembly until elders can be found (as described in II.H.6). vi) The Regional Assembly of Elders will then approve the adoption of any church within its Region with a two-thirds majority vote. f. Care for Churches and Pastors within the Region i) The Regional Assembly of Elders has a shared responsibility for the health and vitality of each church within the Region.
38

ii) This care may be expressed in a variety of ways including counsel and advice, sending representatives to speak and minister at the request of the local church elders, and through cooperative conferences and Regional Assembly of Elders meetings. iii) Regional Leaders will facilitate this care within each Region. g. Selection of Regional Officers and Committees and Delegation of Their Authority i) In order to organize for certain essential functions on the Regional level, every Regional Assembly of Elders will have the following committees: 1) Ordination Committee (at least three members): Conducts all ordination reviews and examinations on behalf of the Regional Assembly of Elders. 2) Judicial Review Committee (five to seven members): Conducts all adjudications at the Regional level. 3) Church Planting Committee (at least three members): Works with the Director of Church Planting and Missions to identify and approve all new church plants within the Region. 4) Regional Nominating Committee (three members): Researches, identifies, and nominates the best candidates for the Regional Leader and the members of the Regions various committees. These committee members must be elected or confirmed by the Regional Assembly of Elders and should include the most experienced and most capable leaders within the Region. Any elder within the Region may nominate a man for this Committee. When the Nominating Committee nominates a candidate, he must still be approved by a simple majority of the Regional Assembly of Elders present and voting. ii) Every Region will select one man to be the Regional Leader. 1) The Regions Nominating Committee, with the counsel and advice of the SGM Leadership Team, will put forward a qualified candidate to be confirmed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly of Elders. 2) The Regional Leader will be selected by the Regional Assembly of Elders every four years. 3) A Regional Leader will serve a four-year term and may serve multiple terms without limits. 4) If a Regional Leader is unable to complete his term, the Regional Assembly of Elders will select his replacement. h. Approval of Changes to the SG Statement of Faith i) Three-fourths of the Regional Assemblies of Elders must approve, by a simple majority vote, any changes to the SG Statement of Faith (III.B.3.b.x). ii) This also requires a three-fourths majority vote of those present and voting at the Council of Elders (see III.B.3.b for the entire process). i. Minutes
39

At all official business meetings of the Regional Assemblies of Elders and of the Regional Committees, of the Council of Elders and of its committees (including the Executive Committee), and of the SG Court of Appeals, minutes must be taken. These need not be word-for-word transcripts, but they should include at least a) the official agenda, b) decisions made and votes taken, c) a summary of the major points brought up in debate or discussion, and d) any statement, especially of dissent or protest, that a member requests be included in the minutes. The minutes must be approved by everyone in attendance at the meeting and responsibly archived. 3. Regional Leaders a. The Purpose of Regional Leaders Regional Leaders do not occupy a special office in addition to that of an elder but rather are elders whose gifting for broader leadership is recognized by the Regional Assembly of Elders. Therefore, the Regional Leader is recognized and elected by the elders in his region and is accountable to them. He also becomes their representative in the election of the members of the Executive Committee. In essence, the Regional Leader (a) is a representative of his Regional Assembly of Elders to SG and (b) provides leadership and coordination of activities within his region. b. Roles and Responsibilities of the Regional Leaders i) Moderates Regional Assembly of Elders meetings. ii) Oversees the election or confirmation of committee members for the Region. iii) Represents the Regional Assembly of Elders at the installation of elders in the local church or, if unable to, appoints another elder within the Region to represent the Regional Assembly of Elders. iv) Coordinates the giving of aid, assistance, and advice to a church whose eldership is embroiled in controversy. Coordinates conciliation and mediation efforts for a church or eldership at the request of the eldership.

v) Gives advice and encouragement to elders and elderships. vi) Coordinates care to churches and pastors within the Region. He may delegate some
of his responsibilities to other pastors in the Region.

vii) He represents his Regional Assembly of Elders when the Regional Leaders convene
as necessary to elect their five members of the SG Nominating Committee (III.C.3.a).

viii) His term is four years, with no limit on the number of terms he may serve. ix) He may be appropriately compensated for his work outside of his local church.
c. Qualifications of the Regional Leaders i) He must have been a SG pastor for at least five years.

ii) He must be relationally strong within the Region and able to facilitate strong gospelcentered unity.
40

iii) He must be doctrinally strong and passionate about our shared values. iv)He must have experience in and a heart for SG. v) He must be a recognized leader among leaders. vi) He must have a heart for and commitment to our mission to plant and care for
churches.

vii) He must have a teaching gift sufficient to bring strong, Scripturally-based leadership
to the Region.

B. Council of Elders
Although the primary locus of integration, care, accountability, and support for the local church is the Regional Assembly of Elders, the Council of Elders provides another important point of support and fellowship and helps foster solidarity across Regions. As churches, we have historically shared a rich history of fellowship at the national and even international level. The Council of Elders is designed to foster our union with other SG churches in other Regions. 1. Formation A representative from the eldership of each church will form the Council of Elders. Churches whose membership exceeds 500 adult (18 or more years old) members may send an additional representative elder. 2. The Council of Elders will convene at least once a year. a. At each meeting of the Council of Elders, the last item on the agenda will be setting the date of the next meeting. The date will be suggested by the Executive Director (the Moderator of the Council of Elders) based on the most amenable date for the next Pastors Conference. A simple majority will carry the vote. b. Members of the Council of Elders may move to hold other meetings if they are necessary. If one fourth of the Council of Elders calls for a Special Meeting of the Council of Elders, the Executive Committee must schedule the Special Meeting of the Council of Elders within sixty days of the request. Those elders initiating the request must present a unified agenda to the Executive Committee along with their petition for the meeting. The Executive Committee will send the proposed agenda and any supporting documentation to all Council members at least thirty days prior to the Special Meeting. c. The Executive Committee, by a majority vote of the Committee members, may call a Special Meeting of the Council of Elders if it deems it necessary. Notice of the Special Meeting will be sent to all Council members thirty days prior to the meeting with a detailed agenda of the Special Meeting and any supporting documents pertinent to the Councils business. d. A quorum consists of at least half of the members of the Council of Elders. A quorum must be present for all binding votes. 3. Responsibilities of the Council of Elders. The official prerogatives of the Council of Elders are strictly limited to the following. a. The Appointment of Committees

41

i) The Council of Elders may create committees in order to expedite and facilitate the execution of its appointed tasks. Any member of the Council of Elders may move to create a committee. The motion will stipulate the number of committee members, the length of their terms, and the committees mandate. If the motion is seconded, the Council shall vote on the matter, which will be decided by a simple majority. ii) The Nominating Committee of the Council of Elders (III.C) will nominate candidates to the committee. All committee candidates must be SG elders, although they need not be members of the Council. The candidates must each be confirmed by a simple majority vote of the Council of Elders. The Chairman of each Committee has authority to introduce business relevant to his Committee in meetings of the Council of Elders, even if he is not a member of the Council. iii) The Council of Elders will thus create a Polity Committee whose mandate will be to review the Book of Church Order and propose amendments as necessary. The Polity Committee will also advise the Council on amendments to the Book of Church Order which may be proposed by other Council members (cf. III.B.3.c). iv) The Council of Elders will also create a Theology Committee whose mandate will be to review the Statement of Faith, to propose amendments to it if necessary, and to advise the Council on amendments to the Statement of Faith which may be proposed by other Council members (cf. III.B.3.b). b. The proposal and approval of changes to the Statement of Faith.
i) The Leadership Team, with leadership primarily coming from the Director of

Theology, may initiate potential changes to the Statement of Faith.

ii) Any three Council of Elders members may initiate potential changes to the Statement

of Faith.
iii) Potential changes must be submitted to the Executive Committee ninety days in

advance of a Council of Elders meeting in order to give time for the proposed change to be studied. Dialogue between the Executive Committee and the party proposing the change may result in an edit or withdrawal of the proposal. If, however, the submitting elders do not edit or withdraw the request for the proposed change, the Executive Committee must put the proposed change on the agenda of the next Council meeting for consideration.
iv) Sixty days in advance of the next Council of Elders meeting, every proposed change

to the Statement of Faith must be sent to every member of the Council of Elders. At this meeting, the Council of Elders will vote on the merits of pursuing the proposed change. If one fourth of the Council of Elders votes in favor of pursuing it, the change will be sent to the Theology Committee for consideration.
v) The Theology Committee will study the change over the next year and will send its

report and recommendation to the Council of Elders ninety days in advance of the Councils next meeting.
vi) Council members may produce written responses to the Theology Committees report

for distribution to the Council thirty days prior to the Councils meeting.
42

vii) At the annual Council of Elders meeting, a time of debate on all proposed changes

will be scheduled.
viii) After debate, a motion must be made and seconded for the adoption of the proposed

change, and then the Council of Elders will vote.

ix) For any change to be adopted, it must receive a three-fourths majority of the votes

cast by the Council.

i) Any change that is approved by the Council of Elders must then be affirmed with a

simple majority by three-fourths of all the Regional Assemblies of Elders. Every Regional Assembly must vote on the proposed change within a year of its approval by the Council of Elders. Each Regional Leader will immediately report the outcome of the vote to the Executive Director. The Executive Director will report the outcome of the votes in the Regional Assemblies at the next meeting of the Council of Elders. If the amendment has been approved, it shall at that time become a binding part of the Statement of Faith. c. The Proposal and approval of changes to the SG Book of Church Order

i) The Leadership Team, with leadership primarily coming from the Director of
Theology, may initiate potential changes to the SG Book of Church Order.

ii) The Polity Committee may initiate changes to the SG Book of Church Order. iii) Any three members of the Council of Elders may initiate potential changes to the SG
Book of Church Order.

iv) Potential changes must be submitted to the Executive Committee ninety days in
advance of the annual Council of Elders meeting in order to give time for the proposed change to be studied and to get it on the Councils agenda.

v) Sixty days in advance of the Council of Elders meeting, the proposed change must be
sent to every member of the Council.

vi) The Polity Committee will be charged with the responsibility to study the proposed
changes and give their reasoned input at the next Council meeting.

vii) At the Council of Elders meeting, a time of debate on all proposed changes will be
scheduled.

viii) After debate, a motion must be made and seconded for the adoption of any change
and then voted on by the Council.

ix) For any change to be adopted, it must receive a simple majority of the votes cast by
the Council of Elders.

x) All approved changes to the SG Book of Church Order will be sent to every SG
church elder. d. The confirmation of the members of the SG Court of Appeal

43

i) These candidates are drawn from the pool of current Regional Judicial Review
Committee members. ii) The SG Nominating Committee will put forth the most qualified men (see III.C.1, III.C.2.a). iii) Each candidate must be individually confirmed by a simple majority of those present and voting in the convened Council of Elders. iv) See section IV.F. for explanation of the SG Court of Appeal. e. Adjudication of charges against a Region (see IV.F.2.e) f. Election of the members of the Executive Committee i) The candidates are nominated by the SG Nominating Committee and elected by the Council of Elders. The Nominating Committee shall put forward at least twice as many candidates as there are open seats on the Executive Committee. ii) Each candidate must be elected by a simple majority vote of those present and voting at the convened Council of Elders. Run-offs may be necessary. g. Confirmation of the Executive Director of the Leadership Team i) After the Executive Committee has chosen the Executive Director candidate, he must be confirmed by a simple majority of the Council of Elders. h. Approval of the Ordination Standards and Exams i) The Leadership Team has the responsibility to submit the Ordination Standards and Examinations for the Council of Elders approval. ii) The Council of Elders must confirm Ordination Standards and Exams and changes thereto by a three-fourths majority vote of those present and voting. iii) Ordination Standards and Exams must then be affirmed by three fourths of the Regions. i. Affirmation of the SG Yearly Budget i) After the Executive Committee has approved a yearly budget, it must be affirmed by a simple majority of the Council of Elders. C. SG Nominating Committee 1. Purpose The SG Nominating Committee will be established to put forth godly and experienced candidates to serve in key functions for the governance of SG churches. Its composition will reflect a broad range of representation (weighted toward Regional Leaders but including centralized leadership) while seeking the most qualified members possible who are most able to discern the best candidates for the positions it nominates. Its function is to bring wisdom, experience, and expertise to the selection of key positions within SG. 2. The Responsibilities of the Nominating Committee
44

a. The Nominating Committee will nominate members of the Regional Judicial Review Committees to serve on the SG Court of Appeal (IV.F.1), subject to the affirmation of the Council of Elders by simple majority vote. b. The Nominating Committee will nominate two or more qualified SG elders to fill each vacant seat on the Executive Committee. From among these candidates, the Council of Elders will elect the requisite number of Executive Committee members. Each candidate must receive the support of at least a simple majority of those present and voting. Run-offs may be necessary (see III.D.1.d). c. Should the Council of Elders see fit to create other committees, their members shall be nominated by the Nominating Committee and individually confirmed by a simple majority vote of the Council of Elders (cf. III.B.3.a). 3. The Members of the Nominating Committee a. Composition The SG Nominating Committee will consist of five representatives of the Regional Leaders, one representative of the existing Executive Committee, and one representative of the Leadership Team. The Regional Leaders will select five of their own members to serve, the Leadership Team will select one of its own members to serve, and the Executive Committee will select one of its own members to serve on the Nominating Committee. This particular mixture of numbers lends weight to the influence of the Regional Leaders while providing the insight and counsel a member of the Executive Committee and Leadership Team can bring. b. Term The members of the Nominating Committee will serve three-year terms. c. The Nominating Committee must have its full complement of members sixty days prior to the election of the members of the Executive Committee and SG Court of Appeal. To ensure this, it is the responsibility of the Executive Committee, the Leadership Team, and the Regional Leaders to supply their representatives to the Nominating Committee in a timely manner.

D. The Executive Committee of the Council of Elders

The Executive Committee exists as an extension of the Council of Elders. Its primary responsibility is oversight of the Leadership Team on behalf of the Council of Elders. Its specific responsibilities are strictly limited to those listed in II.D.2. 1. The Selection of the members of the Executive Committee a. The Executive Committee will consist of nine members. b. The Nominating Committee will nominate two or more candidates for each open seat on the Executive Committee. c. An Executive Committee candidate must be a SG pastor in good standing and recommended by the elders of his church. d. The Council of Elders will elect the members of the Executive Committee from the slate of candidates put forward by the Nominating Committee (cf. III.C.2.b). A candidate must have the support of a simple majority of the votes cast by the Council of Elders. If necessary, runoffs shall be held until the available seats on the Executive Committee are thus filled.

45

2. The Executive Committee will have the following responsibilities: a. To insure that the Leadership Team and its officers are acting in accordance with the mission and core values of the SG churches. b. To appoint and evaluate the Leadership Team. c. To steward the financial assets of SGM. d. To approve the annual budget of SGM. e. To determine the responsibilities of the Leadership Team. f. To select a member to serve on the Nominating Committee. g. To keep current and maintain the SGM Articles of Incorporation and corporate bylaws and keep them consistent with our Book of Church Order. h. To select a chairman from among its members to facilitate decision-making, lead discussions, and serve as a point of contact for whole committee. 3. In an effort to maintain continuity and stability while working toward a more thoroughgoing representational Executive Committee, the plan will be implemented gradually according to the following schedule: a. Prior to the fall 2013 Council of Elders meeting, five of the original members of the Executive Committee will resign to make room for newly elected members. If none voluntarily resigns, then the selection will be made by drawing lots. The resignations will not become effective until January 1, 2014. The Executive Committee will announce the names of the members whose terms will expire at the end of the year. These resigning Executive Committee members will however be eligible for nomination and election to another term at the fall 2013 Council of Elders meeting. b. At its meeting in the fall of 2013, the Council of Elders will elect five men to serve on the Executive Committee beginning January 1, 2014. Two of them will be elected to two-year terms (through December 31, 2015), and three of them will be elected to three-year terms (through December 31, 2016). c. In 2014, the Council of Elders will convene and elect four men to serve on the Executive Committee beginning January 1, 2015. Two men will be elected to three-year terms (through December 31, 2017), and two men to the usual four-year terms (through December 31, 2018). The terms of the four remaining original Executive Committee members will expire on January 1, 2014, unless they are elected to a further term at this meeting of the Council of Elders. d. At each succeeding annual meeting of the Council of Elders, elections shall be held to fill the seats of the members of the Executive Committee whose terms are due to expire that year. All members of the Executive Committee shall be elected to four-year terms, except for those noted above. 4. Terms of Executive Committee Members a. Once elected and affirmed, an Executive Committee member will serve a four-year term. b. There will be no term limits.
46

c. If a member of the Executive Committee is unable to complete his term, then the Executive Committee will elect a replacement who will serve until the Council of Elders can meet to elect someone to a regular four-year term. d. The secretary of the Executive Committee will keep accurate records of the terms of each Committee member and give adequate notice to the Nominating Committee and the Council of Elders of expiring terms. e. If a simple majority of the Executive Committee votes to remove one of its members, and a simple majority of the Council of Elders concurs, the member shall be removed from the Executive Committee.

E. Leadership Team 1. Definition and Rationale

Within SG, the Leadership Team constitutes men that the churches of SG recognize and designate for specialized tasks, such as leadership in mission, pastoral training, and administrative functions for the wider ecclesiastical body. Members of the Leadership Team do not occupy a special office in addition to that of an elder but rather are elders (or men of similar qualification) whose gifting for these types of broader leadership is recognized by other elders. As such, the Leadership Team emerges from our churches and is accountable to the elders of SG through their representatives on the Executive Committee. It is, in essence, a ministry arm of our elders, providing specialized leadership and coordination in aspects of our broader mission. The Leadership Team exists to help facilitate and ensure proper and efficient execution of our shared mission. Their leadership augments our efficiency while supporting the expressed authority of the SG elders and their representatives. 2. Qualifications Specific qualifications will be determined by the Executive Committee. At a minimum, a Leadership Team member should be a member of a SG church and, therefore, accountable to its eldership for his moral integrity. We envision certain members of the Leadership Team (e.g., Executive Director, Director of Church Care) being elders in their respective local church due to their specific function. 3. What are the Leadership Teams responsibilities? a. The Mandate To facilitate and lead as a team in executing the central aspects of our mission according to the values of SG under the oversight of the Executive Committee in partnership with our churches, their elders, and the Regional Leaders. i) Specifically, to do all that is delegated to them by the Executive Committee and under its oversight. ii) These responsibilities can be conceived of under the headings of mission, doctrine, values, and partnership. b. With Respect to the Mission

47

i) In cooperation with the Regional Assemblies, to train church planters and coordinate the planting of new churches. ii) In cooperation with Regional Leaders, to coordinate the care of SG pastors and churches. iii) In cooperation with the Regions, to facilitate and administrate International Missions. iv) In cooperation with the Regions, to identify, investigate, approve, and facilitate all church adoptions. c. With Respect to our Doctrine and Values i) To provide leadership, theological instruction, and pastoral care to the SG Pastors College. ii) To provide continuing theological and pastoral instruction to SG pastors. iii) To develop and maintain SG Ordination Standards and Examinations. iv) In conjunction with the Council of Elders, to steward the SG Statement of Faith. d. With Respect to our Partnership i) To develop resources for ministry within SG. ii) To plan and execute SG conferences. iii) To coordinate activities and ministry between Regions. iv) To communicate on behalf of SG churches to the broader world. v) To facilitate communication and cooperation among the churches and leaders within SG. vi) Under the oversight of the Executive Committee, to administrate the collection and distribution of SG financial resources. vii) To spearhead fundraising. 4. Personnel The Executive Committee determines which positions will comprise the Leadership Team and who will fill these positions. At a minimum, the Leadership Team must include an Executive Director. The rest of the Leadership Team should be staffed sufficiently to fulfill its designated function. The positions listed below seem wise, and the Executive Committee should consider them. a. Executive Director The Executive Director is the presiding officer of the Leadership Team who answers directly to the Executive Committee. He is a non-voting member of the Executive Committee. He must be an elder in a local SG church. He must be confirmed by a simple majority of the Council of Elders. He is responsible to:

48

1. Ensure the successful operation of the Leadership Team through strategic planning, support, evaluation, and movement-wide communication. 2. Facilitate successful operation of the polity and mission, movement-wide, through ensuring that the Leadership Team supports and interacts with Regions, Regional Leaders, and internationally associated churches. 3. Oversee and support fundraising for SGM. 4. Serve as moderator for the Council of Elders, overseeing official meetings and coordinating all its key functions. 5. Serve as the authoritative point of contact for all Leadership Team ministry functions. 6. Promote the health and plurality of the Leadership Team to maximize the effectiveness of each director. 7. Report annually to the Council of Elders on the state of the union of Sovereign Grace churches, including a full assessment of and plans for the progress of our mission along with all relevant financial, legal, and statistical data. This report, along with a full financial statement, will be published and made available to all SG elderships. b. Director of Church Planting and Missions Coordinates church planting, international missions, and church adoptions. c. Director of Administration and Finance Administrates the functions of the Leadership Team, coordinate finances, conferencing, resource distribution, etc. d. Director of Church Care Communicates with the Regional Leaders and coordinates care of all Regions. e. Director of Theology & Training Oversees Pastors College, stewards Statement of Faith, and coordinates theological reviews (e.g., Ordination Exam).

F. Partnership Agreement of the Sovereign Grace Churches

Preamble The Sovereign Grace churches together voluntarily form a unified ecclesiastical body to glorify God as an expression of the bride of Christ. The churches share spiritual and material resources for the furtherance of our common mission under a common government, which guards our fidelity to our common Statement of Faith and standards of corporate holiness. A local church joins itself to the Sovereign Grace body of churches when its elders, representing the church, enter into this partnership agreement with all the other Sovereign Grace churches. Commitments to the Joining Church The elders of the Sovereign Grace churches commit to extending care to each local church by: 1. Providing a network of fellowship and mutual care for each local church, primarily through its Regional Assembly of Elders.

49

2. Providing assistance, counsel, and accountability to local elderships in times of crisis. 3. Providing teaching and training to local church leaders through various conferences, the SG Pastors College, and Regional Assemblies. 4. Providing judicatories and rules of discipline designed to aid the local church during times of crisis, when accusations are made against its leaders, or when there is a need for a place of appeal by a leader or member of local church under discipline. 5. Providing assistance in the doctrinal examination of elder candidates before ordination by the local church. 6. Providing resource allocation, leadership, training, and strategy in the planting of new churches both in the Region and internationally. 7. Facilitating cooperation between churches and Regions in international outreach, evangelism, and mercy ministries. 8. Providing stewardship and development of the SG Statement of Faith through the Council of Elders. 9. Maintaining the SG Book of Church Order so that it continues to serve and benefit the local church. 10. Providing and releasing gifted men to lead in key components of our mission together under the accountability and support of the Council of Elders and its Executive Committee. The Commitments of the Joining Church 1. All the elders of the joining church commit themselves to promote the shared values of the Sovereign Grace churches, including a. Reformed soteriology b. Gospel-centered doctrine and preaching c. Continuationist pneumatology d. Complementarian leadership in the home and church e. Elder-governed and -led churches f. National and international outreach and church planting g. A family of interdependent churches united in fellowship, mission, and governance 2. The joining church commits itself, with its spiritual and material resources, to furthering the shared mission of the Sovereign Grace churches. This mission essentially involves making disciples by planting and supporting local churches. 3. Each elder of the joining church submits without exception to the explicitly mandated polity practices of the Sovereign Grace Book of Church Order. (The explicitly mandated polity practices are the rules and procedures prescribed by the Book of Church Order; submission to these practices does not require agreement with the doctrinal assertions in the Book of
50

Church Order. Submission to the Book of Church Order simply means that one commits to following its rules, not that one agrees with all of its theological claims or underlying principles). Each elder of the joining church also affirms that the form of government contained in the SG Book of Church Order is a wise and suitable application of Scriptural principles. (This affirmation does not require agreement with all of the doctrinal assertions in the Book of Church Order, nor does the affirmation signify that this form of government is the best or only acceptable form. The affirmation only signifies a general approval of this form of government). In particular, the elders willingly agree: a. That passing the Sovereign Grace Ordination Exam is a necessary condition for the ordination of a new elder. b. To fully participate in their Regional Assembly of Elders and, if they are called to do so, in regional committees and the Council of Elders, so far as they are reasonably able. c. To accept the Sovereign Grace Local Church Polity explicit mandates, as stated in the Book of Church Order, and vow to uphold it as the rule of practice in such matters in their local church. d. To provide financial support for Sovereign Grace as they are able. Partnership includes providing financial support for our regional, national, and international mission efforts. For two years following the ratification of this polity, giving ten percent of a churchs regular contributions is encouraged. In two years, the Council of Elders shall consider adopting a minimum giving requirement. e. That, should their eldership at any time in the future wish to withdraw from the Sovereign Grace body of churches, they will follow the separation process stated in the Book of Church Order (III.G). f. That they will keep the bylaws of their local church in conformity with the SG Book of Church Order (cf. II.K). Churches which are associated with SGM at the time of the ratification of this Book of Church Order will be granted a two-year grace period in which to bring their local bylaws into conformity with the Book of Church Order. 4. The elders of the joining church must each write down an explanation of any reservations they have toward the SG Statement of Faith. Each elders exceptions shall be kept on record with the local eldership, the Regional Assembly of Elders, and Sovereign Grace Ministries. The Regional Assembly of Elders must review the recorded exceptions of the joining elders and rule on their significance. If the Regional Assembly rules that an exception is a trivial semantic scruple and not a substantive difference with any doctrine in the Statement of Faith, then the elder may subscribe to the Statement of Faith. But if the Regional Assembly rules that the elder substantially disagrees with any of the doctrines of the Statement of Faith, he may not subscribe to the Statement of Faith, and therefore may not be ordained in SG. If the joining elders are already ordained in SG, and join prior to the formation of a Regional Assembly, then their exceptions will not be reviewed before joining, although they may be reviewed by the Regional Assembly after its formation.

51

Each elders exceptions shall be kept on record with the local eldership, the Regional Assembly of Elders, and Sovereign Grace Ministries. Any member of a Sovereign Grace church may have access to these records. 5. Each elder of the joining church must individually subscribe to the SG Statement of Faith and Book of Church Order by signing two copies of the following statement: I declare sincerely before God that I believe that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the SG Statement of Faith fully agree with the Scriptures, and I own that Statement as the statement and confession of my faith. I promise to teach and defend these doctrines in public and private. I promise further that if in the future I come to have reservations about any of these doctrines, I will share these reservations with my eldership and the Regional Assembly of Elders. I submit without exception to the explicitly mandated polity practices of the SG Book of Church Order. I affirm that the form of government contained in the SG Book of Church Order is a wise and suitable application of Scriptural principles. One copy will remain in the personal safekeeping of the candidate, and one copy will be sent to Sovereign Grace Ministries for archiving. Sovereign Grace Ministries will send photocopies of these signed documents to the Regions Ordination Committee and to the Director of Church Care. Partnership Pledge of the Elders of the Joining Church The elders of the joining church will all sign the following Partnership Pledge and preserve it in safekeeping. A copy of the signed Partnership Pledge will be sent to Sovereign Grace Ministries. When a new elder joins the churchs eldership, he will add his signature to the Partnership Pledge and a new copy will be sent to Sovereign Grace Ministries. Sovereign Grace Ministries will send photocopies of these signed documents to the Regions Ordination Committee and to the Director of Church Care. We, the undersigned elders, having prayerfully and soberly considered this Partnership Agreement, with God as witness enter into it, assuming all of the responsibilities and privileges described herein. We declare sincerely before God that we believe that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the SG Statement of Faith fully agree with the Scriptures, and we own that Statement as the statement and confession of our faith. We promise to teach and defend these doctrines in public and private. We promise further that if in the future we come to have reservations about any of these doctrines, we will share these reservations with our fellow local elders and the Regional Assembly of Elders. We submit without exception to the explicitly mandated polity practices of the Sovereign Grace Book of Church Order. We affirm that the form of government contained in the SG Book of Church Order is a wise and suitable application of Scriptural principles. We pledge to actively support the mission and values of the union of churches known as Sovereign Grace. Provisional Partnership Period

52

As soon as the ratification of this Book of Church Order is announced, all previous Partnership Agreements between Sovereign Grace Ministries and local churches become null and void. At that point, no churches will be Sovereign Grace churches until they have entered into the new Partnership Agreement articulated in this Book of Church Order. In light of the unique circumstances that surround the adoption and implementation of this Book of Church Order by SG Churches, churches may participate in SG on a provisional basis. All churches affiliated with SGM on the date of the ratification of this Book of Church Order, may, for a period of two years following: 1) Join SG and the appropriate Regional Assembly of Elders without going through the adoption process. All of its ordained elders (previously ordained by SG before the date of the ratification of this Book of Church Order) will be accepted in the Regional Assembly of Elders. Any elders ordained between the date of the ratification of this Book of Church Order and the date of the churchs elders signing of the SG Partnership Agreement must be approved by the Regional Assembly of Elders before their acceptance into that body. A church joining SG during this provisional period will send a representative elder to the SG Council of Elders at its next gathering. 2) Leave the SG churches for any reason without censure.

G. Process of Separation for a Local Church from SG

General Principles 1. We are an ecclesiastical union. No separation of such a union should be taken lightly or unadvisedly, but soberly, carefully, and only in light of strong reasons of conscience or compatibility, and then only after earnest efforts have been made to preserve our unity in the Spirit (cf. I.J). 2. There may arise by necessity a time in which a local church for reason of a change of doctrine or other unforeseen reasons can no longer in good faith continue to be part of the SG churches. 3. Upon separation, SG has no right to the property of a local church, and the local church has no right to the property of SG, except as qualified below. 4. Beginning with the adoption of this SG Book of Church Order, any local church planted with the financial assistance of SGM which separates from SG within five years of receiving a church plant grant must repay a prorated amount of the financial assistance that it received. Churches leaving in less than one year must repay 100%, churches leaving in less than two years must repay 80%, churches leaving in less than three years must repay 60%, churches leaving in less than four years must repay 40%, and churches leaving in less than five years must repay 20%. Procedure The following procedures are outlined as a proper expression of mutual respect and affection and a desire to humbly and carefully address the possibility of separation. SGs polity gives tangible expression to Gods command to pursue doctrinally substantiated unity and love (John 17:20-23) by connecting congregations to a broader ecclesiastical body of affiliated churches. In protecting the reputation of Christ, every church should make a concerted, vigorous,
53

and lasting effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, modeling the love of Christ in its given communion of churches, by only withdrawing from such fellowship in exceptional circumstances (I.J). Participation in the union of SG churches is ultimately voluntary; any eldership may withdraw a church from SG without legal or financial penalty (except as specified in G.4). The separation procedures below honor the voluntary character of our union but also express its gravity and sobriety. 1. If a church is considering leaving SG, its elders should contact the Regional Leader and discuss its reasons with him prior to reaching a final decision. 2. If the local church, through her elders, decides to pursue separation, its elders must notify their Regional Assembly of Elders in writing of their decision of intent to withdraw from SG. 3. At least thirty days prior to withdrawal, the elders of that local church shall appear before the Judicial Review Committee of their Region in order to give reason(s) for leaving. 4. The Judicial Review Committee of that Region shall, for the good of the local church and our union, examine in earnest the reasons stated for leaving. 5. If the Judicial Review Committee accepts the reasons for withdrawal to be valid, then the Judicial Review Committee will recommend to the Regional Assembly of Elders that the local church be commended to the Lord and his grace and freed to leave without censure. Valid reasons include, e.g., a non-heretical disagreement with the SG Statement of Faith, a theological inability to submit to the explicit mandates of the SG Book of Church Order, or a practical inability to participate in a Regional Assembly of Elders. 6. If the Judicial Review Committee finds that the eldership of the departing church is a) heretical (i.e., its errors present a grave and immediate threat to the spiritual welfare of church members), b) guilty of unrepented scandalous sin, c) intentionally violating the Book of Church Order while maintaining a public appearance of support for it, or d) has engaged in divisive and destructive behavior (i.e., making or condoning charges against SG members outside of the appropriate church judicatories), then the Judicial Review Committee shall propose to the Regional Assembly of Elders a censure against the eldership stating the reasons why it believes the departure is wrong. 7. If the Judicial Review Committee finds that an eldership is departing for reasons which do not honor the gravity of ecclesiastical union (cf. I.J.3), it may propose to the Regional Assembly of Elders the issue of a comment which neither censures nor commends the elderships decision. Under such circumstances the Judicial Review Committee and the Regional Assembly of Elders are advised to exercise charity and restraint. 8. After hearing the Judicial Review Committees proposal, the Regional Assembly of Elders shall determine, by a simple majority vote, whether to commend, censure, or simply comment upon the local churchs departure. 9. A copy of the commendation, censure, or comment will be sent to all elderships in SG for them to communicate to their congregations as they deem appropriate.

54

IV.

RULES OF DISCIPLINE
A. Principles of Discipline
1. The Context Delineating church discipline procedures is necessary to ensure that when serious sin and controversies affect our churches, we have clear and consistent biblical principles and subsequent practices in place. Certainly the life of our churches is not derived from the following procedures. The length of this section is not a function of the importance of discipline in the overall life of the church but the necessity of specifically spelling out detailed procedures to best serve our churches, our people, and our elders. Moreover, this section reflects SGs ecclesiastical standards, which are separate from civil laws. This section assumes that the laws of all relevant civil authorities apply and is in no way intended to supersede or counteract such laws. 2. The Command The command and authority to exercise church discipline is given by Christ to the church in Matthew 18:15-22, 1 Corinthians 5, and 1 Timothy 5:19-21. 3. The Purpose of Discipline The purpose of discipline is to promote the glory of Christ, the purity of the church, and the restoration of the sinner. Holiness is a high priority for all SG churches because the church is a representation and expression of the holiness of God (Rev. 4:8). 1 Peter 2:9-10 explains that the church is a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession. Likewise, Jesus prefaces his prayer for unity with a petition that God would sanctify his people through the truth of his Word (John 17:17). Unity within the body is to be sought, but never at cost to our holiness. The pursuit and standards of holiness are commanded for all members and especially the leaders of Christs church. When discipline involves judicial action against an elder, discipline is for the purpose of publicly rebuking sin, eradicating scandal, protecting the doctrinal and ethical purity of the body, restoring the offender, and defending the reputation of Jesus Christ. 4. The Spirit of Discipline Discipline should be carried out in a spirit of love and impartiality between brothers, pursuing the glory of God above all else. Christ commands the church and its officers to promote the welfare and purity of its members. Discipline is a power given by Christ to the church for this purpose and should not be implemented in a vindictive spirit. The goal of any disciplinary action is one of merciful reclamation and repentance. To this end, discipline serves to protect and promote godliness in the body according to the standards of holiness set down in Scripture (1 Tim. 4:7; 1 Cor. 5:11-13). 5. The Name and Reputation of the Elder Protected Our good name is to be valued, and we are to protect the reputation of others. The Bible tells us that a good name is to be chosen rather than great riches (Prov. 22:1), and thus our duty to love others implies that we will also protect their name. This means that sins of slander, gossip, divisiveness, and certain expressions of anger must not be tolerated among the people of God. When the good name of an elder is destroyed, it becomes virtually impossible for the elder to
55

fulfill his office. The process detailed below is meant to balance the proper handling of charges against an elder with the obligation of the church to protect his reputation. 6. Peers Able to Judge The Bible assumes that people are able to judge their peers (1 Cor. 5:12-13; 6:2), and thus there is no need to look beyond the elders of SG, first locally and then extra-locally (whichever is more relevant for the situation), for an objective third-party. Exodus 18:17-23 describes Moses appointing judges to oversee cases in the nation of Israel. From these passages, we see that impartiality is possible among our peers. Paul likewise assumes that matters can be handled wisely and impartially within the church. Therefore, we are not required to go outside the elders of SG to find men who will be able to judge righteously. So while gathering counsel from third parties is allowable and may at times be commendable, SG reserves the right and authority to adjudicate matters between its members and its elders itself.

B. Discipline in the Local Church

1. Original Jurisdiction The eldership of a local church has jurisdiction over all who are considered members of said church. Original jurisdiction over an elder belongs:

Firstto the eldership with which he serves

Secondto the Regional Assembly of Elders, whose authority is represented by the Judicial Review Committee

Third to the SG Court of Appeal

This means: a. Charges must first be leveled against an elder or member in the context of his local eldership. All subsequent appeals will be made following the chain of original jurisdiction. b. If one or more elders bring charges against another elder of their local church, the accusing elders are automatically recused from presiding in judgment on the charge. Any other member of that eldership who cannot impartially hear the case must also recuse himself. If the defendant or the plaintiff believes that any of the elders ought to be recused, they may appeal to the Regional Judicial Review Committee who will rule on the matter. If, after recusals, there are only one or two members of the local eldership who can preside over the case, then the Regional Judicial Review Committee shall supply from among its own members enough elders so that three men preside over the case. The elders who preside over a case at the local church level shall be referred to as the Panel. If, after recusals, no member of the local eldership is available to serve on a Panel, then the Regional Judicial Review Committee shall assume jurisdiction. c. If an eldership refuses to hear charges of a doctrinal or publicly scandalous nature and two other elderships file charges with the Regional Judicial Review Committee, the Regional Judicial Review Committee shall assume jurisdiction. d. If the Judicial Review Committee with jurisdiction over an elder refuses to hear charges of a doctrinal or publicly scandalous nature and two other Regional Assemblies of Elders file charges with the SG Court of Appeal, the SG Court of Appeal will pick up jurisdiction. 2. Local Elders Responsible to Instruct and Lead in this Practice
56

Local elders have primary responsibility to instruct and lead the congregation in the practice of church discipline and biblical peacemaking. All individuals involved in a disciplinary process should heed the instructions of Galatians 6:1: Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

C. Discipline of a Member
The members of a local church belong to the bride of Christ and as such are to be held accountable for being faithful representatives of Christ on earth. Members are subject to Christ and his Word and, by extension, to the officers he has appointed to lead his Church. As such, they are under the leadership and care of their local elders, who serve as under-shepherds of Christ and will be held accountable for all they teach and do. Members are subject to the practice of discipline laid out in Matthew 18:15-22 and 1 Corinthians 5, under the elders leadership. Believers have a responsibility to hold each other accountable for the biblical fidelity of their doctrine and deeds and to admonish each other when they stray. The purpose of this is the merciful restoration of a brother from drift, grievous doctrinal error, or unrepentant sin. The sole standard for judging an offense worthy of discipline is that it is contrary to the Word of God. Sins requiring excommunication are behavioral, serious, and unrepentant. These include but are not limited to: gross sexual immorality, teaching false doctrine, divisiveness, convicted criminal activity, and financial impropriety. The steps of Matthew 18 should be followed carefully and privacy protected. The initial steps are both informal and gradual. The discipline is formalized if the elders uphold the veracity of the charge(s) and the person continues in unrepentance. If, in due course, the member remains in sin and is resistant to the appeals of the elders, the elders must tell it to the church with a congregation-wide call to repent. If the member persists in sin after the church has called for repentance, he/she should be excommunicated from the church. However, the goal of any disciplinary action is one of merciful reclamation and repentance. Ultimately, the process of discipline does not conclude with excommunication but should always leave room for future repentance and restoration. The responsibility to receive, excommunicate, and restore church members belongs to the church as a whole (Matt. 18:18-20), but it is specifically given to the churchs governing officers to exercise in leadership of the congregation (Matt. 16:18-19; John 20:23; 1 Cor. 4:14-5:13; 2 Cor. 13:1-4). In addition to a full array of other mutual responsibilities (e.g., love, encouragement, care, etc.), congregants are obliged to lovingly confront one another for impenitent sin (Matt. 18:15-16). The elders (as governing officers) are authorized to hear such charges and render a verdict which they pronounce on behalf of the whole church and in its presence, in the name and power of Jesus Christ, as a corporate appeal for the sinner to repent (Matt. 18:17, 20; 1 Cor. 4:19-21; 5:4-5). Congregants have the duty to carry out the discipline of an excommunicated person by treating them as an unbeliever (1 Cor. 5:9-13; 2 Cor. 2:6; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15). The elders also decide when to readmit the penitent to the fellowship of the church (2 Cor. 2:6-8). It is the duty of the congregants to forgive, comfort, and reaffirm their love for such a one (2 Cor. 2:7-8). A disciplined member may appeal the elders decision and the churchs action to their Regional Judicial Review Committee. Appeal must be made within 30 days.

57

D. Discipline of an Elder
All SG churches will agree to a shared grievance policy for bringing charges against an elder, according to the process in 1 Timothy 5:19-21: Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. First, we should note that Paul is addressing Timothy, a partner in extra-local ministry. The main verbs (Do not admit [paradechou], rebuke [elegche], keep [phulaxs] these things) are second-person singular verbs directed specifically at Timothy. We see this as establishing the precedent that the right authorities to hear an accusation are the governing officers of the church. Second, we are not to admit a charge against an elder without just cause (v. 19). Not all accusations are to be admitted. Some can be refused as being personal matters to be handled according to basic principles of forgiveness and reconciliation (or Matthew 18:15-20 if necessary). Some charges can be refused because they are not matters sufficient to merit the censure of an elder or disqualification from office. A charge may also be refused if it appears to be a malicious attempt to harm the elder or the church or is primarily sinfully motivated. A charge is admitted when it relates to the elders office and is weighty enough to engage in the significant process detailed below. Third, charges are to include the evidence of two or three witnesses. The testimony of more than one witness is necessary to establish a charge, as a protection against false and unsubstantiated charges. One persons word is often as good as anothers, and therefore no individual is to be declared guilty on the basis of a single testimony. However, this rule should not be used to dismiss cases where the testimony of one person is supported by corroborative evidence, or where one persons direct testimony is supported by the indirect testimony of others (that is, testimony from those who have known the man to act in ways that are in keeping with the charge being brought). Also, there are situations with a single witness which ought not be immediately dismissed but should be further investigated for such evidence. These witnesses can serve several roles. At times they have witnessed the same sin or sinful pattern in the elder. They can also substantiate a lack of repentance in the elder. Witnesses can provide testimony of one kind or another throughout the process. Once the trial is underway, witnesses also help to guarantee a fair and impartial processprotecting both the accuser and the elder. Fourth, it is those who persist in sin (v. 20) who are to be rebuked in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. While not detailed here, the implication is that such a public rebuke combined with unrepentant sin would require removal from office. In other words, for most sins, what is of critical importance when considering a public rebuke is that there is an observed pattern of unrepentance in the elder. Fifth, because only the impenitent elder is to receive such a public rebuke, the implication is that an elder who repents of his sin or who is cleared of the charge itself need not receive any public censure. Sixth, it is possible for a church officer to hear the case of another church officer without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality (v. 21). The command to do this implies the ability to
58

do this. Despite the myriad temptations of such a situation, Paul assumes that with a deep awareness of the seriousness of the matter, a man will be able to hear such a case wisely: In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. 1. The Purpose of 1 Timothy 5:19-21 is to provide a critical framework for adjudicating charges against an elder. The nature of the sin or offense requiring removal from office includes any gross or scandalous failure to comply with the moral requirements laid out for leaders in Scripture (i.e., the moral standards put forth in 1 Timothy 3:1-8 and Titus 1:5-9). As stated above, the demand of such passages is not perfection. Therefore grounds for removal are patterns of sinful and impenitent behavior, not isolated events. Exceptions to this include behavior that is automatically disqualifying with a single occurrence (e.g., sexual immorality). Furthermore, any sins that would lead to church discipline (1 Cor. 5:11; Titus 3:10) can also be sufficient grounds for removal from office. These include but are not limited to financial impropriety, convicted criminal activity (Rom. 13:1-4), and sexual immorality. 2. Requirements for Bringing a Charge Definition of Offense:

Public offenses are any sins or heterodox beliefs that are publicly and commonly known. Private offenses are those that are known only to one or a select few individuals. Private offenses may or may not be personal. Personal private offenses are those which
have brought injury to the individual bringing the charge. a. The qualifications of witnesses i. A Member in Good Standing A credible witness from outside SG can bring forward evidence, but the charge must be leveled by a member in good standing of an SG church. ii. Two or More Credible Witnesses No charge against an elder is to be admitted unless it is brought by the evidence of two or more credible witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19) (cf. IV.D above). iii. Witnesses of Character Extra prudence is required whenever the plaintiff or a supporting witness is known to: 1) Harbor ill will or a vengeful spirit against the defendant 2) Be hasty in judgment or quick to accuse 3) Lack integrity or a reputation for honesty 4) Be under discipline or a process of discipline themselves 5) Possess a conflict of interest or would benefit from the defendant being found guilty iv. Consideration and Care for the Witnesses

59

In some cases, the witness or individual bringing forward a charge has been wronged or is in a vulnerable position. Local elders have a responsibility to provide appropriate care for such an individual, to protect them from potential intimidation, etc. b. Within Two Years of the Alleged Offense Charges must be brought forward within two years of the alleged offense, unless it can be established that unusual circumstances prevented this (e.g. the offended party was a minor at the time, etc.). The eldership with original jurisdiction over the defendant has the power to determine if circumstances warrant waiving the two-year limitation period. c. Submitted in Writing A charge must be submitted in writing by a member or fellow elder within SG and should detail the following: 1st. The precise nature of the alleged offense. Description of the alleged offense should include as many relevant details as possible in terms of date, time, place, circumstances, description of events and conversations, and the names and contact information of any witnesses present. 2nd. Relevant Scriptures 3rd. Relevant sections of the SG Statement of Faith or Book of Church Order 4th. Any effort(s) made by the plaintiff to make the elder aware of this deficiency and the response to these efforts 5th. The specific evidence for the charge 6th. Why the evidence and charge carries sufficient weight for a trial d. Sufficient Weight for a Trial For a charge to be admitted and a trial called, there should be sufficient grounds regarding the seriousness of the offense. An admitted charge should represent a serious breach of sound doctrine (as defined by the SG Statement of Faith) or the character qualifications for office (1 Tim. 3:1-8; Titus 1:5-9; cf. II.A.3). Thus, charges cannot be made because a member disagrees with the decisions or the style of the elder, with the doctrine of SG, or with doctrines not explicitly or implicitly addressed in the SG Statement of Faith. Such differences are part of every relationship and of normal church life and do not constitute a basis for charges against an elder. Further, a charge must have sufficient evidence to be legitimate. Simple hearsay, where the plaintiff was not directly involved in a situation and only became aware of it through the reports of others, may warrant further investigation but is generally not sufficient by itself to warrant a charge. 3. Just Cause - Requirements for Admitting a Charge A decision will be made by the Panel about whether this charge calls for a trial, dismissal, personal reconciliation (e.g., Matt. 18:15- 20), or some other process. It is recommended that the Panel pursue counsel from a representative of the Judicial Review Committee to ensure that the procedures of adjudication are properly followed.
60

If the decision is made not to adjudicate a charge, the Panel will respond in writing (electronic communication is not sufficient) with a biblical and clear rationale about why they have decided in this way.

4. Plaintiff May Appeal If the Panel decides not to admit the charge, the plaintiff may then appeal this decision within 30 days. An appeal is made by writing a letter of no more than five pages to the Regional Judicial Review Committee about why the Panel has wrongly rejected this charge. The original written charge, the response to the charge by the Panel, and the written appeal will be mailed to chairman of the Judicial Review Committee. Members of the Regional Judicial Review Committee who served on the Panel will be recused from deciding upon appeals related to the case. The Judicial Review Committee will decide if the decision of the Panel is appropriate, if the charge should be heard, or if there is a third option for further action (such as mediation by a third-party, etc.). The response of the Judicial Review Committee will be mailed to the Panel and the plaintiff, postmarked within thirty days. If the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the decision and action of the Judicial Review Committee, he/she has recourse of final appeal to the SG Court of Appeal. 5. The Rights of the Defendant a. The Priority of Privacy In most situations, the plaintiff and defendant should resolve the incident privately or among the local eldership. Before this process escalates to the point of making an official charge, it is incumbent on the plaintiff and the elder to make all efforts to handle the situation face-to-face over a sufficient period of time. If an individual or party knows of the private offense of an elder, they should first approach the man in private, graciously bring their observation or charge, and call for repentance. If he fails to repent or persists in his sin, the charge should be brought to the attention of his eldership. In this case, we heed the wisdom of Paul that love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Cor. 13:7). We owe to one another the judgment of charity, assuming the best and seeking to resolve disputes and differences in a godly, humble, and patient manner. The process below occurs when such efforts have not satisfied the plaintiff. b. The Priority of Confidentiality There is to be a progressive involvement of other people, making nothing public until it is required by the process, and then only through the appropriate channels. In Matthew 18:15-20, from which we derive our practice of church discipline, there is a progressive escalation of input if a person is not repentant. The matter is not told to the church (v. 17) until the person has refused the one-on-one appeal (v. 15) and the one or two others (v. 16). The church then makes an appeal through its representatives, the elders (v. 17). Only then is it appropriate to make a matter public. Until this point, the obligations of the Proverbs must be appreciated: Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets, but he who is
61

trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered (Prov. 11:13; cf. 10:18; 16:28; 18:8; 20:19; 26:20, 22). The reputation of an elder is not to be damaged lightly. Secrecy and covering of scandal and sin is not excusable. However, Scripture is careful to protect leaders from hasty judgment and false reports (1 Tim. 5:19). Confidentiality should be carefully ensured until such a time as it is necessary to communicate publicly. c. The Right to Face Your Accuser The accused elder has the right to face his accuser, unless the charge stems from the testimony of a minor. It is a grave thing to bring a charge against a leader of Gods people, and the accuser should be aware that he/she will have to give account before God for his/her testimony (Deut. 19:1519, cf. Deut. 17:7). The accuser should be made aware of the weight of the testimony he/she is giving. d. The Wife of the Defendant The wife of the defendant elder is not required to testify against her husband. She can serve as a witness if she so chooses, but this is not mandated. e. Due Process Due process must be followed and a presumption of innocence granted until judgment is rendered by the Panel. Public pronouncements should be avoided until appeals are finished. f. Appeal If found to be at fault, the defendant has 30 days to file his formal appeal with his regional Judicial Review Committee. If the elders ordination has been revoked, then the eldership may continue to pay him until the appeals process is over, but it is not required to do so. 6. The Rights of the Plaintiff a. The Right to Make a Charge and Have the Charge Evaluated Individuals have the right to make a charge against an elder, provided they meet the requisite requirements of Scripture (e.g. 1 Tim 5:19) and the Book of Church Order. When an individual or group brings a charge forward against an elder, they are afforded the right to have that charge evaluated by the other elders of the local church. However, this does not imply that the matter must go to trial. The Panel must still determine if there is just cause for admitting the charge (IV.D.3 above). b. The Right to Confidentiality There is to be a progressive involvement of other individuals, making nothing public until it is required by the process, and then only through appropriate channels. Similar to the protections of the defendant spelled out above, Matthew 18:15-20 should guide a careful and deliberate escalation of input. The defendant, local eldership, and other involved parties must be careful to avoid making details public before it is required by the process. In particular, the plaintiff has the right to have their reputation protected. Effort must be made by the local eldership to ensure that the plaintiff does not become the object of retribution in the form of intimidation, slander, or gossip. In the same way that the defendant elders
62

reputation should be protected from hasty judgment, the plaintiff should be afforded the same reasonable confidentiality until such a time as it is necessary to communicate publicly. There may be some instances where the identity of the plaintiff or witnesses should not be made public: the individual(s) may be particularly vulnerable, a minor, etc. Such a determination will be made at the discretion of the Panel. c. The Right to Appeal If the plaintiff is not satisfied with the decisions or judgments of the Panel, they have thirty days to file formal appeal with the defendants regional Judicial Review Committee. Likewise, if the plaintiff is not satisfied with the decisions or judgments of the regional Judicial Review Committee, they have 30 days to file formal appeal with the SG Court of Appeal. 7. Trial Proceedings at the Local Level The Panel shall fix the date of the trial and inform all relevant parties in writing. If the defendant fails to appear without satisfactory reason for his absence at the pre-appointed time of the trial, a one-time continuance will be granted. If he fails to appear on the second date, the trial will proceed in his absence. The time allowed for setting the date of the trial will be determined by the Panel with due consideration for the circumstances. Likewise, the date of any trial or appeal before the regional Judicial Review Committee or SG Court of Appeal will be set by the presiding judicatory, making due consideration for the circumstances. They will notify all relevant parties in writing. If the defendant fails to appear at the pre-appointed time, the trial will proceed in his absence. a. Commitment to Confidentiality and Godly Speech If a trial is to be held, it is wise to establish a degree of confidentiality. Given the wide range of situations, it is left to the presiding Panel to determine what level of confidentiality is possible and beneficial to the process of justice (e.g. when an accusation against an elder is publicly known, it may serve the congregation to know that a process is being engaged to investigate the truthfulness of the allegation). Effort should be taken to protect the involved parties from the needless damage that can occur when the suspicion of wrongdoing is unduly communicated to others. Keeping potentially hurtful disclosures to the minimum possible level, consistent with a fair, clean, and thorough proceeding, is appropriate in such difficult situations and to protect the reputation of both the plaintiff and defendant. Discretion should also be applied to ensure that no party feels unduly isolated from suitable counsel, care, and accountability during the course of adjudication. Beyond mere confidentiality, a good faith effort should be made by all involved parties to promote and practice godly speech. Words and speech should not be used as weapons to assault any individuals involved in a matter of discipline. Rather, all involved parties should endeavor to ensure that their speech is in keeping with the ultimate goals of biblical justice and restoration, that it may give grace to those who hear (Eph 4:29-31). Care should be given to prevent speech or actions that undermine a fair and unbiased process of discipline and adjudication. In addition, the involved parties and local church should strive to prevent speech that might carelessly or deliberately incite a reaction, generate divisiveness, or inflame

63

conflict. If the elder is found guilty of the charges, the case will be made known to the local SG church and therefore becomes a public matter. Further, the case and its results will be made known to the Regional Assembly of Elders and the SG Director of Church Care. In some instances, the identity of the plaintiff or key witnesses should not be disclosed to the wider public. This determination will be made by the presiding Panel, Committee, or Court. If the elder is found not guilty of the charges, the case in essence is a private matter between two Christians and is therefore not to be discussed unless absolutely necessary (e.g. when an accusation is already publicly known). To do so inappropriately would constitute gossip and slander. b. Rules for Evidence i. Written communication (as opposed to electronic) Throughout the duration of the process detailed below, all official communication between the elders and the parties involved in the trial must be written and not electronic. Further, all communication regarding the case must be included in the final set of documents to be kept on file by the local church and SGM. This is to prevent causing unnecessary harm and to eliminate a potential source of sin for those involved in the trial. ii. Submission of Evidence 1) If the Panel deems, in a preliminary fashion, that the requirements for admitting the charge and establishing just cause (see IV. D.2-3) have been met, the plaintiff will present the following to the Panel: a.) The official charge b.) Document evidence c.) Information regarding witnesses: their name(s), local church affiliation, description of their role in the hearing, a brief description of what they will share, and an estimation of how much time each will need to give their testimony d.) Names and local church affiliation of any advisors to be present during the hearing All evidence against the defendant should be submitted 30 days prior to the Panel hearing the case. Additional evidence or witnesses will not be allowed after this thirty-day period unless it can be shown to the Panels satisfaction that it was not possible for them to be submitted earlier. 2) Upon considering the more detailed evidence and the witnesses required for trial, the Panel has the prerogative of dismissing any charges they believe are either frivolous or do not meet the requirements for admitting the charge and establishing just cause. 3) If the Panel deems that the requirements for admitting the charge and establishing just cause have been met, the defendant will present the following to the Panel: a.) A statement of reasonable length responding to the charge b.) Document evidence

64

c.) Information regarding witnesses: their name(s), local church affiliation, description of their role in the hearing, a brief description on what they will share, and an estimation of how much time each will need to share their testimony d.) Names and local church affiliation of any advisors present during the hearing. 4) The Panel can decide to refuse certain evidence if it is not seen to be relevant or is too weak to make the intended point. The Panel may also reduce the amount of time to be given to a witness if it is excessive and would extend the trial unnecessarily. iii. Requests for Documentation Either party may request documentation from the opposing party. This request will be sent in writing and a copy also sent to the Panel. The party receiving the request must present the documentation or provide a written explanation detailing why this is not possible (unreasonable request, impossible request, etc.). The Panel may request documentation from either party. This request will be sent in writing. The party being requested must present the documentation or provide a written explanation about why this is not possible (unreasonable request, impossible request, etc.). Such requests and the responses to these requests will be taken into consideration by the Panel as it hears the case. For example, reasonable requests for relevant documents will strengthen the partys credibility, while unreasonable requests for unnecessary documents will weaken it. Each party will be given a brief description of the documents submitted by the other party, as well as brief descriptions of the witnesses who will testify. This is to assist in the crossexaminations. c. Advisors for Each Party Each party in the hearing is allowed to have one or two persons to assist and advise them during the proceedings (and throughout the entire process). Such advisors must be members in good standing of a SG church (unless prior approval is obtained from the Panel). Each party must absorb their own expenses for this (the local church will not pay the expenses of the elder on trial). However, if the elder is ultimately cleared of the charges, the local church should reimburse him for all expenses related to his defense. While the parties will represent themselves in the hearing, the advisors may be present to give them assistance. A party may petition the Panel to have the advisor speak on their behalf if they feel unable to adequately represent themselves. The Panel is not obligated to accept this petition. Further, as this is not a jury trial, the Panel has the responsibility to make sure that both sides are heard and adequately cross-examined. d. A Court Reporter If a local church can financially support it, it may be wise to hire a court reporter for the hearing and present a final manuscript of the proceedings. If this is too financially severe at the time of the hearing, a recording should be made of the proceedings. The complete record of the proceedings will be kept on file by the local church and SGM for at least 20 years. This is to ensure an accurate record of what is said in the proceedings to protect all parties
65

involved. It is also for the benefit of the Judicial Review Committee should an appeal of a Panels ruling be made. e. Cross-Examination The hearing will include cross-examination to see that all evidence and testimony is treated as fairly as possible. The Panel will be entrusted with the task of keeping this cross-examination patient, gracious, and as gentle as possible. f. The Hearing The hearing will last one to two days, during which time the elder and plaintiff will face each other. (In the event the Panel determines that more time is required, effort should be made to inform the involved parties as early as possible so that arrangements can be made). The role of the Panel in this hearing is to make sure that Christian civility is maintained, that the plaintiff is enabled to appropriately convey his/her concerns and charge(s), and that all testimony is sufficiently heard and cross-examined. Justice and godliness are to be preserved for the final outcome but also throughout the process. Those present at the hearing will be the Panel, the two parties (plaintiff and advisors, elder and advisors), and the court reporter. Witnesses will be present only during their testimony. If a court reporter is not used, someone will be present to handle the recording of the proceedings. A hearing should include at least the following: i. Determining the moderator The moderator will be chosen from among the members of the Panel. He is responsible for ensuring that the minutes of the trial proceedings are being kept, that order is maintained, and that the Book of Church Order procedures are followed. ii. Opening statements for both parties, not to exceed 30 minutes each iii. Time for both sides to present evidence and witnesses iv. Time for both sides to cross-examine and make objections v. Time for the Panel to interact with evidence and witnesses, seeking clarification where necessary vi. Closing statement for both parties, not to exceed 60 minutes each, unless extended by a decision of the Panel 8. Trial Results a. A Binding Decision A binding decision should be reached in no more than ten days. This decision should be submitted in writing to all parties and the regional Judicial Review Committee by registered mail. The decision should not be communicated via electronic medium. b. Cleared of Charges The defendant is not found to be at fault or there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
66

c. Private Rebuke The defendant is found to be at fault, but the offense is not sufficient grounds for removal from office or it was not deemed appropriate to make the matter public, especially for one who is repentant (1 Tim. 5:20). d. Public Rebuke The defendant is found to be at fault, and the offense is serious enough to warrant public reporting but not sufficient grounds for removal from office, especially for one who is repentant (1 Tim. 5:20). The public or grievous nature of the sin, while not disqualifying, warrants a public reporting. If the Panel recommends a temporary suspension of office or some kind of a leave-of-absence as elder, the hope is that the elder will be restored to office. It is different from the man being removed, immediately losing his office, and being terminated as a result. If he does temporarily lose his office and the elder desires to be restored, there will be a second appearance before the Panel at the end of the prescribed regimen before he can be restored as an elder. The particulars of the temporary-leave process, terms, conditions of restoration, and restoration may vary according to the situation, and so the details are left to the discretion of the Panel. e. Removal from Office The defendant is found to be at fault for an offense that warrants removal. Written and public explanation of the charges and grounds for guilt should be provided to the local church, the Regional Assembly of Elders, Director of Church Care, and SGM. The elder may be repentant, but the scandalous nature of the sin still requires removal (e.g. serious criminal behavior, adultery, etc.). The elders ordination is revoked in such a circumstance as well. f. Excommunication The defendant is found to be at fault and is not repentant. 9. Process for Care and Restoration a. Removal from Office In the case of removal from office, effort must be given to extend care and counsel to the convicted elder, his family, and the local church. The goal of all church discipline is ultimately repentance, reconciliation, and where possible, restoration. The Regional Leader will be responsible for coordinating care, in concert with the appropriate local elders, even if a man has no desire to return to ministry at a future date. Reasonable time and effort should be given to caring for the man and his family as he transitions out of ministry. Particular attention should be given to the spiritual well being of the removed elder and his family. While they may be resistant to such care, a good faith attempt must still be made. In the end, it is important to recognize that although appropriate time and effort may be given, the man and his family might remain dissatisfied, unrepentant, or unreconciled. Additionally, the Regional Leader will coordinate care and counsel for the local church and elders. The primary responsibility for leading the church through such a season falls to its local elders. However, extra assistance, counsel, and care should be extended by the Region of any church that has an elder removed or excommunicated.

67

The presiding judicatory (i.e. Panel, Judicial Review Committee, or SG Court of Appeal) responsible for handing down a judgment for removal from office will set the date for the restoration hearing as part of their initial decision. The purpose of this hearing is to decide if the terms and conditions for restoration, detailed in their judgment, have been met. The judicatory should exercise discretion when setting the date to ensure that there is sufficient time for a process of restoration. If a man who has been removed from office desires to return as an elder in a Sovereign Grace church, he will take initiative to contact the Judicial Review Committee that had the original jurisdiction in concert with the appropriate church and her elders. Restoration implicitly assumes that a man desires to be restored. He must inform the Judicial Review Committee in writing of his desire to move forward with his restoration hearing at least one month in advance of the date set by the presiding judicatory in their original judgment. Both the convicted elder and his local elders will speak at the restoration hearing. They will provide testimony to the Judicial Review Committee regarding the mans progress in repentance. Both sides may provide evidence (documents or testimony) that the terms for restoration have or have not been met. The same rules for evidence and cross-examination for the initial trial apply here. The opinions of the local elders about the mans qualification to be restored will be weighed appropriately by the Judicial Review Committee. The Judicial Review Committee will render a final judgment recommending or denying restoration. If it believes progress is being made, but that more time is required, it may schedule a subsequent hearing and must articulate in detail the ongoing terms and conditions for restoration. If the Judicial Review Committee rules a man fit to return to ministry, his ordination and good standing as an elder in SG will be reinstated. It is possible the Judicial Review Committee may rule to restore a man, but they or the local elders find it inappropriate for him to return to his former position or church. In this case, the mans ordination and good standing are reinstated, and he will be put in contact with his Regional Leader and the Director of Church Care (or a representative working in his stead) to explore future ministry opportunities. N.B. If the local elders feel that new areas of concern regarding a mans fitness for ministry have surfaced in the time between the Judicial Review Committees initial verdict and the restoration hearing, they must make a second charge against the man for him to be disqualified or denied reinstatement on that basis. b. Excommunicated In the case of an elder being excommunicated, the commands of Matthew 18 will be followed, and he will be treated, as anyone in that circumstance, as an unbeliever, in hope that he will come to repentance and be reconciled with the church. 10. Communication Communication for the discipline of a qualified pastor will be handled by the local church and according to the wisdom of its eldership. However, any judgment involving suspension or removal from office must be reported in writing to the Regional Assembly of Elders and

68

Director of Church Care of the SGM Leadership Team because it affects a mans fitness for office and broader service within SG. 11. Appeal to the Judicial Review Committee The Panels judgment can be appealed to the Regional Judicial Review Committee, provided the appeal is made by an individual from the original jurisdiction or another SG elder within that Region. 12. Non-Judicial Removal or Repositioning of an Elder While not a situation that falls under the jurisdiction of discipline, an eldership may remove one of its members from his position (not removing his ordination) for deficiencies in the performance of his duties. In particular, a man may be removed if he is shown to be deficient in the areas of leadership, care, or teaching. These grounds for removal are not of a moral nature and do not represent any deficiency of character, per se, and therefore do not impinge upon his ordination. If a pastor is removed for perceived deficiencies in the performance of his duties, he will be referred to the Regional Leader and Director of Church Care to assist him in finding a position for future ministry. If, in the judgment of the local eldership, an elder is a poor fit for the needs of his local church or the church can no longer support him financially, the eldership has the authority to adjust his role locally, which may include either removal or repositioning him into an unpaid eldership position. However, in both cases his ordination is retained and, if he chooses, he will be referred to the Regional Leader and Director of Church Care to assist him in finding a position for future ministry in another SG church. A man who retains a valid ordination in SG but who is not a member of any local eldership is not a member of the Regional Assembly of Elders or of the Council of Elders.

E. Regional Judicial Review Committees

1. Appointment of the Judicial Review Committee The Nominating Committee of each Region puts forward names of candidates, each of whom must be confirmed by a simple majority of the Regional Assembly of Elders. Members of the Judicial Review Committee will serve six-year terms with no term limits. If an elder resigns before his term is up, the Nominating Committee will appoint a replacement for the duration of the term, pending confirmation from the Regional Assembly of Elders by simple majority vote. The Judicial Review Committee will consist of five to seven pastors in a Region, preferably from different churches, with each case heard by three members of the committee. Men are assigned to a case through blind draw. An elder can be exempted for various reasons from time constraints to conflict of interest. 2. Powers and Responsibilities of the Judicial Review Committee a. The Judicial Review Committee will serve as a resource for informal counsel to elderships walking through a 1 Timothy 5:19-21 proceeding at the local level. This is to ensure that the procedural elements of discipline are followed.

69

b. A local eldership will not publicly rebuke or remove an elder without the involvement and help of the Judicial Review Committee. In these instances (a. and b.), the Judicial Review Committee is not weighing in on the guilt or innocence of the elder, but assisting to ensure that a fair and just process has been carried out according to the procedures spelled out in the Rules of Discipline. c. The Judicial Review Committee will also serve as a body of appeal for church members who have been disciplined or removed from membership. d. If a charge is brought against an elder but is not admitted by the Panel, the person bringing the charge may appeal to the Judicial Review Committee. The Judicial Review Committee will determine whether or not they will hear the case. e. The Judicial Review Committee will be a place of appeal for any elder who is removed by a local Panel. The Judicial Review Committee has the right to examine the appealed case and render a verdict. This result will be a binding decision in which the elder in question is cleared of charges, privately or publicly rebuked, or removed from office. f. The Judicial Review Committee will serve as the original adjudicating body for the trial of an accused elder in the case where a local eldership is too small to adequately deal with the matter (cf. IV.B.1.b). In such a case, the SG Court of Appeal would handle any further appeal. g. A local Panel has recourse of appeal to the SG Court of Appeal should they disagree with any judgment by the Judicial Review Committee that overturns their prior verdict. However, the decision of the Judicial Review Committee should be enacted, even while the appeals process continues. h. Charges Against Extra-Local Leaders Charges against extra-local leaders (Regional Leader, Executive Committee member, Leadership Team member) that pertain generally to their qualification as elders will be handled according to the usual chain of jurisdiction for an elder (IV.B.1): local Panel, Judicial Review Committee, SG Court of Appeal. The evaluation and discipline procedures of pastors apply to all the aforementioned SG extra-local leaders. Charges of heterodoxy or sin that pertain uniquely to the performance of their duties as extra-local leaders will be handled by the Judicial Review Committee (with possible appeal to the SG Court of Appeal), in the case of Regional Leaders, or by the SG Court of Appeal, in the case of Executive Committee members or Leadership Team members. Complaints merely about job performance are handled by the Regional Assembly of Elders (in the case of Regional Leaders) and the Executive Committee (in the case of members of the Executive Committee and Leadership Team). i. Public Censure of an Eldership Original Jurisdiction over an Eldership i. A Note on Original Jurisdiction The Regional Assembly of Elders has jurisdiction over all elderships within the region in matters pertaining to the ordination, doctrinal fidelity, and moral integrity of elders. In such matters, the Regional Assembly of Elders has authority for censure and to

70

disavow an elders ordination. (Disavowal means that SG revokes its approval of a mans qualification for eldership and no longer recognizes him as an elder.) - First to the elders of their region as represented by the Judicial Review Committee - Second to the SG Court of Appeal ii. Any member in good standing may level charges against their local eldership. Any appeal will be made following the chain of original jurisdiction. iii. Likewise, if the Judicial Review Committee with jurisdiction over an eldership refuses to hear charges of a doctrinal or publicly scandalous nature and two Regional Assemblies of Elders bring charges, the SG Court of Appeal will pick up jurisdiction (See IV.F.2.). iv. Circumstances Requiring Public Censure 1) Persistent deviation from the SG Statement of Faith 2) Divisive behavior (e.g., making or condoning charges against SG members outside of the appropriate church judicatories) 3) Outstanding and impenitent sin on the part of the elders 4) Persistent failure to uphold the SG Book of Church Order or the SG Partnership Agreement v. The Censure of an Eldership 1) Some cases may require an entire eldership be put on trial as a whole, instead of being tried as individuals (e.g., if the elders have been charged with covering up scandal for each other or have together embraced heterodoxy). In these instances, the procedure for censuring an entire eldership will follow the process for censuring individual elders. 2) A censure will only be issued at the result of a trial (IV.D.7), which includes proper investigation, written charges, witnesses, and an opportunity for appeal to the SG Court of Appeal. 3) A copy of the censure will be sent to all elderships in SG for them to communicate to their congregations as they deem appropriate. vi. The Removal of Censure 1) When an eldership is censured, there should be consistent contact and prayer from fellow elders in the region. 2) The restoration of a censured eldership may be initiated by the censured eldership or by the Judicial Review Committee that issued the censure. 3) The Judicial Review Committee will meet with the censured eldership and will review the case to determine whether the censured party has shown sufficient repentance and change. An eldership that has been censured will be restored only if the Judicial Review Committee believes appropriate conditions have been met and that restoration will not harm the reputation of Christ and the church.
71

4) Restoration will be accompanied by a prayer of thanksgiving to God for his grace, and the removal of censure will be communicated as broadly as the original censure. j. Disavowal of an Eldership i. Circumstances Requiring Disavowal If the Judicial Review Committee determines that a censured eldership has not changed its offending behavior in a credible and timely fashion, it may propose that the Regional Assembly of Elders disavow the eldership (i.e., revoke its approval and recognition of the ordination of the elders in question). If the Judicial Review Committee proposes the disavowal of an eldership, this proposal must be confirmed by a simple majority of the Regional Assembly of Elders. If the Regional Assembly votes to disavow the eldership, the Regional Assembly of Elders will assume pastoral responsibility for the churchs members, as described in II.H.6 If the ruling is overturned by majority vote, the Judicial Review Committee can do the following: 1) Rescind their prior judgment and remove the censure.

2) Keep the censure in place until the eldership evinces change warranting a removal of
the censure.

3) Keep the censure in place and re-propose disavowal of the eldership to the Regional
Assembly at a later time. iii. If a Regional Assembly rules to disavow an eldership, the eldership can appeal the ruling to the SG Court of Appeal. iv. If the SG Court of Appeal overturns the Regional Assemblys majority vote to disavow the eldership, the Regional Assembly may again vote to disavow the eldership when there is further evidence of the elderships persistence in that behavior for which it was originally censured. v. Communication of Disavowal Notice and explanation of the elderships disavowal will be sent to all elderships in SG for them to communicate to their congregations as they deem appropriate. k. SG has no rights to a churchs assets and will assume none of its liabilities. l. Likewise, no local church will assume either assets or liabilities of any other SG church or SGM, the Executive Committee, or the Leadership Team.

F. The SG Court of Appeal

1. Candidates for the SG Court of Appeal are drawn from the members of the Regional Judicial Review Committees. They are put forward by the SG Nominating Committee, and each member is individually confirmed by a simple majority vote of the Council of Elders (cf. III.B.3.d).

72

a. When an appeal is heard by the SG Court of Appeal, the Appellate Elders from the Region in which the charge originated will recuse themselves in order to prevent conflict of interest. b. The number of Appellate Elders will correspond to the number of Regions. c. These Appellate Elders will be appointed to six-year terms, with no term limits. d. When a case is appealed, five Appellate Elders will be assigned to determine whether they will hear the case. e. A blind draw will be used to assign the Appellate Elders to a case. 2. Responsibilities of the SG Court of Appeal a. The SG Court of Appeal has the right to review or not review cases that have previously been decided by a Regional Judicial Review Committee at their discretion, pursuant to appeal. b. The Court has the right to uphold or overturn the decision of a regional court and is not bound to grant another trial. c. Elders who believe their case has been mishandled by a Judicial Review Committee have the right to appeal to the SG Court of Appeal. This may be individual elders who have been disciplined or disavowed, or entire elderships that have been censured or disavowed by the regional court. d. When a local church places a member under discipline and the Judicial Review Committee subsequently upholds the discipline on appeal, the member will have the right of further appeal to the SG Court of Appeal. e. Censure or Removal of a Region from SG i. Circumstances requiring the censure or removal of a Region include 1) Persistent deviation from the SG Statement of Faith 2) Persistent divisive behavior (e.g., making or condoning charges against SG members outside of the appropriate judicatories) 3) Unrepentant sin on the part of the elders 4) Persistent failure to uphold the SG Book of Church Order or the SG Partnership Agreement ii. Charges against a region must be brought by ten members of the Council of Elders. Elders and elderships within a Region which register their dissent against the position or action of the Region will be exempted from censure or removal. iii. When a charge is brought forward, seven Appellate Elders will be assigned to determine whether they will hear the case. They will be selected by blind draw, minus the representative from the defendant region. The SG Court of Appeal will render one of the following judgments: 1) Not Guilty

73

2) Censure 3) Removal iv. If the judgment is for censure, the Council of Elders will finalize or overturn the decision by a simple majority vote. v. If the judgment is for removal, a two-thirds majority vote by the Council of Elders will finalize the decision of the SG Court of Appeal. vi. If the judgment of the SG Court of Appeal is not upheld by a two-thirds majority, it will immediately initiate a simple majority vote by the Council of Elders on whether to censure the Region.

74

Appendix I: Introduction to the Second Edition of the SG Polity Proposal

This letter was included with the Second Edition of the SG Polity Proposal on February 24, 2013. You will recall that at its April 2012 meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, the SGM Board of Directors commissioned a group of seven Sovereign Grace (SG) pastors to propose a polity structure for the Sovereign Grace family of churches. Following a period of study and an open exchange of polity position papers by SG pastors, this Polity Committee submitted its initial draft of the Polity Proposal to the Board of Directors at its October 2012 meeting. After the Board made its edits, the Polity Proposal was presented to all SG pastors on Oct. 31, 2012. At the Pastors Conference that followed, there was a more formal presentation of the Polity Proposal that included a time of Q & A. This was succeeded by a 90-day period of examination and feedback by SG pastors. The Polity Committee made itself available to answer questions concerning the polity and to receive valuable criticism of the Proposal from many SG elders. In light of the feedback it received, the Polity Committee has suggested many changes to the initial Polity Proposal. We referred to several of these in our January 21 update. The Board of Directors has, in turn, considered the changes suggested at its February 10-12, 2013, meeting and added some of its own changes. The document that you now have before you is the Revised Polity Proposal that has been edited and approved by the SG Board. We have no illusion that it represents a perfect polity, but we believe it gives us the needed structure and guidelines to begin a new chapter in SG history. Should this Revised Polity Proposal be ratified, we anticipate that the Council of Elders will continue to make changes and refinements for years to come.

A Brief Historical Look at SG Polity and How We Got Here

Perhaps it would be helpful at this point to stop and look back at the history of Sovereign Grace with respect to polity. It should be noted that the person writing this brief historical sketch (Phil Sasser) was not and has never been on the Leadership team or Apostolic Team, and his perspective is not from an insiders view but rather a view from a moderate distance as a pastor in an SG church. It should also be noted that there apparently was never unanimity within the Apostolic Team on the issue of ecclesiastical authority. Nevertheless, at the street level, a fairly unified polity did exist from the early 1980s through the late nineties, though it has undergone several notable shifts in the years since. As a movement, Sovereign Grace Ministries (formerly People of Destiny, International, and then just PDI) was formed during the latter stages of the modern Charismatic movement. In those days, any talk of formal structure and denominations was eschewed and viewed, at best, as a concession to a lack of spiritual vitality and health. One phenomena of the charismatic movement was the reexamination of the doctrine of cessationism that characterized much of evangelicalism in general and Reformed circles in particular. This movement began with a renewed appreciation for spiritual gifts. With regard to spiritual gifts, we owe much to our older Pentecostal brothers and sisters who endured no small amount of persecution and ridicule for believing the teaching of Scripture. Today, we see many churches and denominations that were previously cessationist that are now open to spiritual gifts, even if they call themselves by names other than Pentecostal or Charismatic. Along with this revival of the gifts of the Spirit, there was also in the 1970s a reexamination of the cessation of the gift ministries to the church, apostles and prophets in particular. From its very beginnings, the leaders and elders of Sovereign Grace believed and accepted that these gift ministries were a blessing to the church, taught that they were for today, recognized such gifted men, and gave them commensurate offices from which they served in both ecclesial and missional roles. These leaders werent alone in their belief in contemporary apostles and prophets, and there was a proliferation of similar church movements on virtually every continent. Terry Virgo in the UK, among others, was one of the men whose influence was felt by Sovereign Grace leaders
75

in those early days. Within SG, Larry Tomczak, who was a well-known speaker and author in charismatic circles and one of the founders of People of Destiny, International wrote this during his tenure as leader of the SG Apostolic Team: Our Lord has no new pattern for fulfilling his purposes in the earth. His original blueprint remains intact: It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare Gods people for works of service, so that the body of Christ maybecome mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:11-13). For the Church to mature, it needs to embrace all of the God-ordained ministries outlined above. None are optional.9 Even earlier, at the January 1985 People of Destiny Pastors Conference, Brent Detwiler, then a member of the Apostolic Team, speaking to the pastors gathered in Rockville, MD, on The Role of the Apostle, was very clear in articulating his belief that God was restoring the 5-fold ministry (Ephesians 4:11), including apostles and prophets. During those years, our family of churches was divided into apostolic spheres with a recognized apostle having oversight of and ministry to the churches in his charge. It might be hard for some now to believe, but many, if not most, of the pastors in SG who were around back then had overwhelmingly positive experiences with our apostles and viewed them as Gods gift to the local church. The apostolic leaders of our family of churches spearheaded the planting of new churches, laid careful doctrinal foundations in our churches, ordained elders, cared for the elders in the local churches, aided the various churches during times of crisis, and brought a remarkable unity and cooperation in mission between all of the churches of Sovereign Grace. This doesnt mean there was agreement concerning the office of apostle. There wasnt. Furthermore, each apostolic leader exercised his apostolic authority in sometimes very different ways with varying amounts of authority (and some avoided the term authority altogether), but all were united in the belief that there was a contemporary apostolic function that could be exercised by apostolically gifted men and that apostles had both missional and ecclesiastical responsibility. Our polity for those first 25 years was characterized by elder rule of local churches (plurality of elders with the recognition of a first among equals senior pastor) and apostolic ministry. Over the years, diversity in the theological understanding of apostolic ministry within the SG Apostolic Team continued to grow. From the beginning, there had always been a clear distinction made between the Capital-A Apostles and the small-a apostles of today, and all agreed with that. But as the new millennium rolled around, significant disagreement arose about whether contemporary apostles could still use the example of the Apostle Paul as a type for apostolic ministry in the church today. Was Paul an Ephesians 4:11 apostle or was he more like the Twelve? It was eventually concluded by the majority that Paul was more like the Twelve and hence could not be used as a typeat least without significant qualification. Starting in 2002, more formalized discussions took place within the Apostolic Team attempting to bring clarity to the issue. Some on the Apostolic team advocated a diminished authority of the apostle, especially as the local church matured and had a well-functioning plurality. This change in perspective by some on the Apostolic Team was captured by Dave Harvey in his booklet on Polity in the SG Perspectives series published in 2004. Dave wrote: The best place to center this discussion is not in authority, but in responsibility. Authentic apostolic ministry does not begin with an apostles rights over churches, but with an apostles calling to serve churches. . . .So, whereas Paul may be justified in referencing his apostolic
9

Whats All This about Apostles? People of Destiny Magazine, Nov./Dec. 1990, p. 8.

76

authority, apostolic models today are better served by emphasizing the responsibility of servanthood that is essential to the calling. 10 Dave finishes that section by answering the following rhetorical question: If one cannotmust notadopt the full scope of Pauls authority, what biblical guidelines establish the appropriate level of present-day apostolic responsibility?11 Dave went on to advocate a gradual decrease in apostolic authority as the local church matures, using the metaphor of the relationship of a father to his growing son. At some point the son becomes mature, and the fathers voice becomes that of an advisor. Nevertheless, Dave maintained that the apostle never completely loses his responsibility for the local church. Subsequent to the 2004 Perspectives booklet on polity, more changes took place within the Apostolic Teams understanding of contemporary apostolic ministry. By at least 2008, there developed a growing uncertainty about whether the office of apostle continued at all after the first century. This coincided with changes in the make-up the Apostolic Team. The use of the term Apostolic Team was discontinued and replaced with Leadership Team. C.J. Mahaneys title became President of SGM and Team Leader. The other members, Dave Harvey, Jeff Purswell, and Joshua Harris plus C.J., constituted the Board of Directors, and the older members of the Apostolic Team, Brent Detwiler and Steve Shank, became Regional Leaders. Brent subsequently declined to continue as a Regional Leader and became a church planter in Mooresville, NC. While the office of apostle was not completely jettisoned, the emphasis shifted to the missiological leadership role that the NT apostles played, and the ecclesiological (authoritative) role was deemphasized. The Leadership Team met and re-evaluated apostolic ministry in 2009-2010 and included the Extended Team (Regional Leaders) in their discussions. They labored to maintain the functional apostolic component. The distinction between an apostolic function (i.e., the ongoing leadership of the churchs mission by men gifted for this task) and the office of apostle was presented by Jeff Purswell in his teaching to SG pastors as they gathered in Louisville, KY, the night before the Together for the Gospel conference in April 2010. That was succeeded by several regional polity gatherings during late 2010 and early 2011, which sought to engender discussions of polity among SG elders. That brings us to the summer of 2011. The crisis that began in July 2011 and continues to this day brought further impetus and focus to the polity refinements the Leadership Team began exploring in 2009. Many within SG did not even understand what our polity was in 2011. On top of that, we had no detailed procedure to deal appropriately with accusations of wrongdoing by our extra-local leaders (a lack the current crisis brought to the fore) or, for that matter, with accusations of wrongdoing by local leadersat least in an organized and consistent manner that insured fair treatment of all, including the congregants of our churches. Many of our polity weaknesses have been exposed. Although polity is not a cure-all for every issue, bringing order to our polity will assist us in dealing with other issues. This is why the current polity process is such an important opportunity for our family of churches. We must not waste this opportunity to bring order to our own house. You may ask what place does apostolic ministry have in our Revised Polity Proposal? It has a place, but it is limited to gifting and function and does not include any office of apostle. It is most evident in the place that we have made for gifted leaders to express that leadership in areas of extra-local ministry. First, I would point out that we have proposed a Regional Leader in every Regional Assembly of Elders (RAE). 10 Polity: Serving and Leading the Local Church, Sovereign Grace Perspectives 2 (March 2004): 21. 11 Polity: Serving and Leading the Local Church, Sovereign Grace Perspectives 2 (March 2004): 22.
77

These regional leaders, while they are elected by the RAE and derive their authority from the RAE, may still be commissioned to perform those extra-local functions that the elders in the Region deem appropriate within the limitations of the Book of Church Order. The difference between the Regional Leader in the Proposal and those of our more distant past is that now 1) they do not have the authority of office of apostle, and 2) they are accountable to the Regional Assembly of Elders. But still, room is made for a leadership gift that is extra-local in its measure and scope. This is a significant departure from historic Presbyterianism. Second, room is made for gifted leaders to lead us in the central, extra-local components of our ecclesiology i.e., the Leadership Team. These are the men that lead important aspects of our common mission bridging across all of the Regions. The Director of Church Care, the Director of Church Planting, the Director of Theology, and the Executive Director are all roles for gifted leaders. But again, while room is made to recognize gifted men and to release them to ministry, they do not have the authority of an apostolic office. They are recognized and set apart by the Council of Elders through their representatives on the Executive Committee, and they are accountable to the same. That is a most important point of discontinuity with our historic structure and practice, and it is a significant difference with Presbyterianism. We have all greatly benefitted from the leadership gifts in Sovereign Grace in ways that Presbyterians and Independent Congregationalists could never have experienced. But again the difference is 1) these leaders have no apostolic office, and 2) they are accountable to the Council of Elders. With respect to authority, they are in the end elders in local churches with some extra-local responsibilities and must qualify accordingly, and they occupy no higher ecclesiastical office than that of an elder.

The Place of a Book of Church Order

The SG Book of Church Order has a very defined and limited role for Sovereign Grace churches. It is intended to contribute to the health and well-being of every church in particular and our family of churches as a whole. It is an agreement between all of our churches as to how we will structure ourselves for the purposes of accomplishing our shared mission, protecting the doctrinal purity of our churches, and preserving holiness in our fellowship. As Sovereign Grace churches, we have a rich history together, but as we have grown, we have had to face new challenges that accompany any movement that outlives its infancy, grows in size, and matures in stature. We all want to see our churches flourish and remain healthy for years to come. The SG Book of Church Order is meant to protect the local church from attack from without and from corruption from within. That is all. It gives us form and structure. It gives us a wineskin to hold new wine. Appropriate structure should never impede growth. The Polity Committee is very aware of how different this Polity Proposal is from the polity that we have grown up with. It has committees, councils, procedures, and rules. But let us not be intimidated by structure and a new nomenclature. Every group of churches that has survived for more than a generation has had to bring a certain amount of structure in order to protect the life within. It is the trestle that supports the vine. That is all. It is the Holy Spirit who brings life. It is the teaching of the Word of God that produces growth. Polity can do neither of those things. The unity of the Spirit and the wonderful relationships that have been so
78

important to us in our past can never be replaced by structure. This unity and these relationships must be cultivated and nourished by the rich fellowship that has characterized Sovereign Grace churches and their pastors for over three decades. We were built relationally and, by Gods grace, will continue to be so. It has been a unique blessing which none of us wants to lose. One of the strengths of the Polity Proposal is its emphasis on Regional Assemblies of Elders. Whereas before many of our churches were linked primarily through the Regional Leaders (or previously apostles), the new polity gives us a greater opportunity to build horizontally with our fellow elders in the Region and not just vertically to leaders. In the old days when we had Celebration Conferences, our churches were much closer; at least once a year, we were all together for four days in the summer. As we grew larger, those types of meetings became less feasible because they were dependent upon the central components of SGM, they were very expensive, and they placed a burden on SGM leaders and staff. The Regional Assemblies Elders prescribed by the new polity will give us a new opportunity to foster those kinds of relationships. And not just for the elders. By cooperating in mission at the Regional Level, there will be new opportunities for the members within our churches to develop a sense of community and mission with members of other SG churches in the Region. In short, it is our hope that the new polity will encourage relationships, not hinder them. Some folks in our churches who have read the Polity Proposal have expressed the opinion that it is too complicated and hence confusing. I understand that concern. Part of that thinking is due to the fact that the Book of Church Order was written in a rather bare-bones style with a minimum of explanation, and part of it is due to the nomenclature used to describe the polity structures. Regional Assemblies, Judicial Review Committees, Council of Elders, Court of Appeals, and such are terms that befit (gasp!) denominations. Well folks, we are a denomination whether we think of ourselves that way or not. To denominate things is merely to describe them with a common name. We are called Sovereign Grace churches. Also, every group develops its own names for its own structures. Weve always had unique names for things. PDI, SGM, Apostolic Team, Celebration, Team Related Churches (TRCsremember?), Regional Leaders, Regional Delegates, Assessment Teams, Extended Leadership Team, Ministry Teams, Care Groups, etc. Its like a foreign language to others, but to us it all made sense. So it is with the new polity. It really isnt too complicated. We can do this. The Presbyterians are far more complicated in their structure and terminology, and theyve been able to do this for almost 400 years. Remember that beyond the local church, there are two basic groups: The Regional Assembly of Elders and the Council of Elders. They each have several responsibilities. The Committees are merely the way that the Regional Assemblies organize themselves for their various responsibilities. Likewise, the Council of Elders has its own limited functions and its various committees are the way that it must organize itself to carry out its responsibilities in an orderly fashion. It is our hope that if we live with this polity for awhile, the confusion will go away. Also, should the Polity Committee have more time, it might be able to produce a more user-friendly version.

The Ratification Process

Some have asked about the nature of the ratification process. Simply stated, each church eldership will delegate one of their number to represent them in the ratification vote. All of the representatives will then cast their vote either for or against the polity. If the polity carries by a simple majority, it will become the official polity of SG. Those churches wishing to be a part of SG will then make their declaration to do so, and we will begin the formation of the Regional Assemblies. Some have asked why only a simple majority. The answer is not complicated. At this point in the life of our family of churches, it may be impossible for any one polity approach to gain a super majority. If we fail to adopt a new polity, then we would default to the ill-defined and poorly communicated polity weve had for the past couple of years. I
79

dont think anybody wants to do that. And there are other considerations. For instance, in a family of churches our size, there are always at least a couple of churches that are in the midst of crisis. As previously noted, our means to assist an eldership in crisis is at present woefully inadequate. We need the Book of Church Order to aid in the care for those churches, and a delay could cause them harm. Finally, if some churches are not ready to join, we dont think that their reluctance to do so should impede other churches that are ready. We have made provision in the Revised Polity Proposal for a two-year grace period so that a SG church can join when they are comfortable in so doing and leave at any point for any reason without censure.

What to Call Ourselves

And finally, there is the issue of what to call our little family of churches. No decision has been made. We will let the Council of Elders take up the issue if the Proposal is ratified. The name we floated out there, Union of Sovereign Grace Churches, was met with the underwhelming sound of one hand clapping, so we invited your suggestions. Here are a few that we received: Sovereign Grace Churches United Fellowship of Sovereign Grace Churches Communion of Reformed Charismatic Churches Sovereign Grace Church Network Sovereign Grace Ministries League of Ordinary Churches Mtley Chrch (suggested by someone from THE decade of bad music: the 80s) If I misplaced your suggestion, please send it again to the Committee for a New Name, in care of Mike Bradshaw.

Preface to the Supporting Documents for the Book of Church Order

In what follows, you will find an Appeal for Ecclesiastical Union. This brief essay is substantially identical to the section of the same title that appeared in the preface to the November 2012 version of the Book of Church Order. However, a few words have been changed in order to moderate its tone and clarify its meaning. Some people pointed out that its biblical arguments are insufficient in various ways. This is admittedly the case. In response to this deficiency, instead of overhauling the original Appeal, the Polity Committee elected to write three new essays, each of which defend the Book of Church Order from a different perspective: Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Apostolic. The brief essay on Sovereign Graces International Partners has been substantially revised in order to emphasize even more our eagerness to fully include international churches in this polity configuration. The Executive Summary has been substantially revised to reflect the changes made to the Book of Church Order since November 2012.

80

Appendix II: A Brief Explanation of Major Revisions to the Book of Church Order since November 2012
Innumerable changes were made to correct typos and to improve word choice and style. Redundancies were removed and portions were rearranged more logically. Further explanations, ranging from a sentence (What does the moderator do in the trial of a local elder?) to a paragraph (What is a censure?) to several paragraphs (see the Introduction to the section on The Role of the Congregation). Occasionally, changes have been made to make technical details self-consistent across the whole Book of Church Order. Changes of this sort did not affect the fundamental structure of the polity and will not be remarked upon below; hopefully they are self-explanatory. It would be very difficult if not impossible to give a complete account of every more or less substantial edit that has occurred. What follows will only survey some of the most significant edits. Many of the most important substantive changes were mentioned already in a blog post by Phil Sasser, and not all of those will be repeated below. 1. There will be a two-year provisional membership window during which any church that is a Sovereign Grace church on the date of the politys ratification will be allowed to join Sovereign Grace (in its new configuration) without going through the usual adoption process and will be able to leave Sovereign Grace without being censured under any circumstances. 2. Giving ten percent of a churchs regular offerings to Sovereign Grace is encouraged but not mandated. The Council of Elders may revisit this issue in two years time. 3. The only body which can ordain an elder or directly remove him from office is the local eldership of a church. The Regional Assembly does not ordain or remove from office. However, SG churches agree that they will not ordain a man as an elder unless he has been approved by the Regional Assembly of Elders. Furthermore, the Regional Assemblies and the Council of Elders and their associated judicial bodies (the Judicial Review Committees and the SG Court of Appeal) can disavow the ordination of an elder. That is, these bodies can revoke their approval of a mans ordination and, thereby, cease to recognize him as a qualified SG elder. The practical effect of disavowal is virtually the same as that of removal from office. It is worth giving here a few brief reasons why the churches must agree not to ordain any elders not approved by the Regional Assembly. Several people proposed two tiers of elderslocallyordained only, and locally-ordained and SG-recognized/approved. But this proposal leaves the locally-ordained-only elder without any judicial recourse or protection should a crisis emerge within the local eldership. Furthermore, the polity proposal is based on the principle that the local eldership is responsible and accountable to the Regional Assembly and Council of Elders for its actions. If the local eldership is only partially responsible and accountable to these bodies, insuperable difficulties would emerge for this polity. 4. A Regional Assembly can only disapprove of an elder candidate put forward by a local church on grounds of heterodoxy or serious sin. 5. Bivocational elders have been discussed in much more favorable terms. 6. Should a church at any time be entirely without elders, the Regional Assembly of Elders will assume pastoral responsibility for the congregation until local elders can be installed.

81

7. Significant material has been added to emphasize that public, formal congregational votes are allowed in Sovereign Grace churches. However, no congregational vote shall be regarded as absolutely binding on the eldership. 8. A section has been added on local church bylaws (II.K) which stipulates that only local elders can change them and that they must be made consistent with the SG BCO within two years of a churchs joining. 9. The nature of an elders subscription to the Statement of Faith, the possibility of taking exceptions to it, and the nature of an elders submission to the Book of Church Order has been treated more fully and carefully. These issues have been explained in a separate section in this Preface. 10. The November 2012 draft of the BCO stated that a church could be censured for separating from SG for bad reasons. In this revised BCO, censurable reasons have been carefully defined. Furthermore, the Regional Assembly has three options for how to respond to a churchs departure: commendation, censure, or comment that neither censures nor condemns. 11. Due process for censure, appeal, and the removal of censure has been filled out considerably. 12. In order to prevent large elderships from dominating a Regional Assembly, at most five elders from each church can vote at the Regional Assembly. 13. The process for electing Executive Committee members has been changed. To begin with, the SG Nominating Committee has been reconfigured: it now has five Regional Leaders, one Leadership Team member, and one Executive Committee member. The Nominating Committee will put forward at least twice as many candidates as there are open seats on the Executive Committee. The Council of Elders will then elect Executive Committee members from this slate. This process is simpler because it eliminates the separate vote of the Regional Leaders but increases their influence by increasing their numbers on the Nominating Committee. Furthermore, a slate of candidates gives the Council of Elders more freedom to determine who sits on the Executive Committee. 14. The Executive Director will present an annual report to the Council of Elders, including a presentation of the budget proposal. The budget must be approved by the Council of Elders. 15. The terms for five members of the current Board (henceforth the Executive Committee) will end on or before December 31, 2013. Their replacements will be elected at this years Council of Elders. The terms of the remaining four current Board members will end on or before December 31, 2014, and their replacements will be elected at next years Council of Elders meeting. 16. Procedural matters for the Council of Elders have been expanded greatly. Also, in the Rules of Discipline, important additions have been made regarding the rights of plaintiffs and witnesses, confidentiality and godly speech, and other procedural matters.

82

Appendix III: Appeal for Ecclesiastical Union

As the Polity Committee approached the task given to it by the Board, a logical ordering of the relevant issues emerged. That is, the answers to certain key questions would logically determine the answers to the remaining questions. First and foremost was the question of whether or not SG churches were to be absolutely independent of one another or whether they together form one unified ecclesiastical body. If the churches are absolutely independent, then, by definition, there could be no unified polity for them. Each church would configure its own governmental structure independent of all others, and its elders would not be answerable in a significant way to any church or group of churches, but only to themselves or, in the case of a congregational polity, to its members. Likewise, the central aspects of SGM (as we have known it) would have to be organized as an independent parachurch ministry (with no vital connection to churches) to which the churches delegated some aspects of their shared mission. SGM would then be governmentally autonomous and SGM officers would not be answerable in a significant way to any church or group of churches but only to their equally independent board of directors. There would be, therefore, no need at all to debate polity outside of the local church. And, indeed, that is the way many independent churches function in the United States today. They are entirely autonomous with regard to governance, doctrine, and moral integrity, with no substantial accountability outside of themselves. To answer the question concerning complete independency versus interdependent union, the Committee turned to the Scriptures to see how the churches in the NT were organized and related. The Committees research included its own detailed study, interactions with SGM pastors, formal presentations of papers by SGM pastors, and conversations with outside church leaders and theologians representing a range of polities. The Committees opinion on this question is that the churches in the NT were not independent (and therefore unaccountable to other churches doctrinally, morally, etc.), but rather significantly interrelated and interdependent. Individual local churches seemed to have a fundamental integrity that was not dependent upon affiliation with other churches, and yet they seemed to be bound together not only in mission but also in doctrine and in some aspects of governance. We are therefore recommending a polity that embodies a form of ecclesiastical unity, based upon five considerations: 1. It is supported by the doctrine of the universality of the church; 2. It is supported by the example of the churches in the NT; 3. It is seen in the majority of church traditions throughout most of church history; 4. It facilitates and leverages our mission together; and 5. It is part of our own shared history, which testifies to the abundant grace that has flowed from our ecclesiastical unity. First, ecclesiastical unity is supported by the doctrine of the universality of the church. The Scriptures teach us that all Christians are part of one body, and therefore one church. Ephesians 4:3-4 exhorts us to maintain the unity of the Spirit and that there is one body and one Spirit. Is Christ divided? asks Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:13. While the answer to that question is quite obviously no, we, as Christians of this age, have perhaps resisted the unifying ministry of the Holy Spirit and have grown too at ease with the independent spirit of our time. According to Scripture, a fundamental organic unity should characterize the church of Jesus Christ, and that unity ought to find expression in as many areas of church life as possible. It seems to be the God-given impulse of both individuals and churches. We see it in the life of new believers in Christ. Believers are water baptized into the one body of Christ (1 Cor.
83

12:13), which gives the church universal a degree of social demarcation and public visibility. Just as every new believer in Christ has a basic God-given impulse to join with other believers in close fellowship, so also local churches ought to have a desire to join together as much as possible. The Scriptures emphasize the importance of our unity in John 17 when Jesus says: 20I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:20-21) The unity we are able to achieve is a powerful witness to the gospel. It seems to be the testimony of history that divisions within the body of Christ are a result of sin and weakness. Unity is not to be achieved at the expense of sound doctrine, which is what has characterized the majority of modern ecumenical movements. But SG churches are, for the most part, unified in doctrine, and our shared values give us a wonderful opportunity for an even greater expression of unity. Scripture supports not only a spiritual unity but also a unity of governance and mission as is demonstrated by the gifts that Christ gives to the church. He gave gifted men and officers (including elders and apostles) to the church universal (Eph. 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28), which suggests that the church universal has a visible social and organizational structure. The burden of proof for complete independency seems to lie with its advocates in light of the teaching and example of the Scriptures. Second, we see ecclesiastical unity supported by the example of the church in the NT. There is a real unity expressed in the NT that is wonderful to behold. We see gifted men traveling to and from churches. We see that the churches in the NT did not regard themselves as essentially independent or autonomous. In many cases they appear to have organized themselves as a regional church comprised of several local churches. For example, Luke refers to the primitive church in Jerusalem as one, single church (Acts 8:1, 3; 11:22; 15:4), although it numbered in the thousands (Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 21:20). This suggests that the one church met in many distinct house-churches, such as the NT describes elsewhere (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 8:3; cf. Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2). The Antioch church provides a similar witness. A great many people (Acts 11:21, 24, 26) belonged to the one church at Antioch (Acts 11:26, 13:1). With no temple for the church to meet in, it seems plausible to think that the Antioch church consisted of many smaller house-churches. Without pressing the details too far, these almost incidental references point to the vital unity that existed among NT congregations. The apparent governmental interdependence of NT churches gives further support to their ecclesiastical unity. First, regardless of how one applies all the details, the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 provides evidence for the governmental interdependency of local churches. A dispute regarding the orthodoxy of Paul and Barnabas arises in Antioch, but the case is referred to the elders and apostles in Jerusalem for adjudication. Several lines of evidence point to the extra-local governmental authority of the council: (a) The very fact that a local church (Antioch) would deem it appropriate to look outside of their own church to other men in other churches shows that the church did not regard itself as completely self-governing. (b) If it is the case that the elders of the Jerusalem council came from many different Jerusalem housechurches, then this also indicates the governmental unity of the churches. (c) The council viewed itself as having authority in many local churches. The council communicated its decision not only to the church in Antioch, but to churches in all of Syria and Cilica as well (15:22ff.; 16:4). (d) The decree sent to the churches carried authority: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements (Acts 15:28). The decision came, not as a suggestion from a neighboring church, but as an authoritative decree (carrying the burden of requirements) sent by ecclesiastical officers. It was given in that spirit (vv. 24-30), and it was received in that spirit (v. 31).
84

Additionally, the extra-local unity, cooperation, and government of the NT churches is especially apparent in the ministry of the apostles. Although contemporary apostles do not function explicitly in the proposed polity of SG, the ministry of NT apostles tells us something about the nature of the church. Apostles and their coworkers ordained elders (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5), adjudicated charges against them, censured them if necessary (1 Tim. 5:19-21), and authoritatively regulated the moral and doctrinal purity of the churches (e.g., 1 Cor. 4:14-5:5; 1 Cor. 11:16; 2 Cor. 10:6, 13:1-4, 10; 2 Tim. 1:1314). Through apostolic ministry, the churches of the NT were vitally connected in a common mission and had avenues for mutual financial support and mutual benevolence and care. Even in the absence of apostles, there is no textual warrant for jettisoning elements of extra-local unity (mission, care, and government) that characterized the NT churches (indeed, early church history after the NT era points to the assumption that these extra-local elements should continue). To set aside these texts as irrelevant to the contemporary church is to set aside key textual bases for establishing a biblical polity. In sum, we are hard pressed to avoid an ecclesiastical unity if we would honor the principle of substantial connectivity of local churches so pervasive and compelling in the NT. So, in the Committees recommended polity, the extra-local function exercised by the NT apostles and the vital connectivity they fostered transfers to Regional Assemblies of Elders. This structure resembles a modified form of Presbyterianism. Third, ecclesiastical unity is seen in the majority of church traditions throughout most of church history. We will not belabor this point, but it is instructive and should chasten the impulse of complete autonomy for a local congregation. The ecclesiastical unity that characterized the NT church was assumed by the apostles heirs and was given expression in the church following the NT era. Even amidst significant theological differences, the major church bodies that emerged from the Reformation retained a vital ecclesiastical unity among their respective congregations. Although we recognize that no historical argument is determinative and the history of the church is variegated, the majority witness of church history points to an ecclesiastical unity among congregations, which should not be lightly dismissed. Fourth, ecclesiastical unity facilitates and leverages our mission together. A truly functional mutual accountability and a fruitful and effective shared mission necessitate ecclesiastical unity since they involve local elders exercising their authority in partnership. No single local church is capable of carrying out all of the tasks necessary for the discipleship of the nations (Matt. 28:19-20). Local churches rely on cooperative efforts for such tasks as the theological training of ministers, the deployment of church planters, and other educational and publishing endeavors. If local churches are, by divine design and biblical precedent, joined into larger ecclesiastical bodies, then they naturally have God-given means to carry out such efforts in a theologically coherent manner. But if local churches are fundamentally independent, then such cooperative efforts are ad hoc measures of merely human devising, which will likely lack both durability and accountability. The mission of the church should be carried out by the church in her visible, organized capacity; it is best not delegated to external agents or organizations. An ecclesiastical body can truly carry out cooperative missionary efforts as the church. For essentially independent churches, however, cooperative organizations are not themselves ecclesiastical, but are rather parachurch, since they fall outside the scope of the authority of any particular congregation or its officers. Furthermore, churches historically have sought to make common confession of their shared understanding of the gospel in order to bear witness to their spiritual unity in Christ. Without a mechanism for
85

enforcing fidelity to that confession, subscription soon becomes meaningless. In the case of absolute independency, no one outside a particular local church has spiritual authority to enforce confessional fidelity within that local church. In the NT, however, the vital connections between churches allowed for such enforcement and thus preserved doctrinal unity (e.g. 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 1 Cor. 11:16; cf. Acts 15:2729). Fifth, ecclesiastical unity is part of our shared history. For over 30 years, SG churches have flourished as a result of their ecclesiastical unity. We moved in unity through the various winds and waves that were so prevalent in the 70s and 80s, particularly in charismatic churches. We have embraced as an ecclesiastical body the shared values that are, in part, what define us and give us doctrinal distinctives as SG churches. We are Reformed in our soteriology, gospel-centered in our preaching and teaching, continuationist in our pneumatology, complementarian in our view of leadership in the home and in the church, committed to church planting, and passionate in our corporate worship. SGM has been a great means of grace to our churches, and every SG elder has tasted the benefits of the ecclesiastical unity that SGM facilitated. We are loath to abandon the rich legacy and fruitfulness of a true and thoroughgoing gospel partnership. We have lived in it for decades, and it is the hope of this Committee that our unity will continue, even as we seek to bring reform and refinement to our polity.

86

Appendix IV-A: A Defense of the Proposal from a Congregationalist Perspective

- Paul Buckley Many find the Congregational view of polity compelling for a few key reasons. First, the primacy of the local church is a clear teaching of the New Testament (see Matt. 18:15-20, Acts 13-20 with Rom. 15:1819, Eph. 1-6 et al.). Second, the authority vested in local elders is extensively described in Scripture (see 1 Pet. 5:1-4, Heb.13:17, Acts 20:28, 1 Cor. 3:10-17, 1 Thess. 2:19-20, Eph. 4:11-16, etc.). Third, although the connectivity between churches in the New Testament is undeniable (see Matt. 16:16, Acts 15, 1 Cor. 11:16, 2 Cor. 8:4 et al.), the continued basis of this connectivity on either modern apostles, bishops, or presbyteries is debatable. Hence, only a clear local church authority remains firmly established. (Note: This current polity is neither an endorsement nor denial of this polity perspective.) Congregational churches of all types share, at their core, the conviction that local churches are autonomous. This autonomy is understood simply as the ability of the church to rule itself. It does not imply complete independence from the rest of the body of Christ nor omni-competence in fulfilling the commands and commissions given to the entire church. Congregationalism may include different forms of governance of the local church. Some Congregational churches understand the elders to only have jurisdiction in the preaching and teaching of the Word and the sacraments while congregational committees, the diaconate, and annual meetings govern other aspects of church life. Other Congregational churches may practice elder rule, where formal affirmation from the congregation may be a vital part of congregational life but final authority remains in the hands of the elders. Whatever the local governance may be, all Congregational churches have in common an understanding that the local church is autonomous in its polity. This local church autonomy need not be exercised without the benefit of the cooperation, advice and accountability of a broader body. Congregationalism is sometimes known as Independency. This is somewhat of a misnomer because few Congregationalists believe in the complete independence of the local church. Most will find some way to depend on other churches and church leaders for key functions. The degree of this mutual dependency will dictate the degree of the association. In this polity, those with Congregationalist sympathies will find an association that is clearly defined and delimited to maximize the benefit of interdependence among our union of churches without removing authority from the local churches and their elders. This polity is designed to assist local churches in four key areas where they typically need help: 1) Cooperation in Mission, 2) Cooperation in Care, 3) Doctrinal Fidelity, and 4) Accountability in Crisis. It does all four without superseding the authority of the local church. Cooperation in Mission We are part of the universal Church and as such have responsibilities beyond our local church. Jesus has given all of us the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). There is no way any solitary local church can fulfill this call. We need other churches. A substantial partnership built around shared theology and values; guarded by a wise, delimited polity; and propelled by genuine, gospel-driven relationships will be a powerful accelerant to fulfilling our part of the Great Commission. We need the benefit of pooling resources, consulting with others, and partnering together for greater effect. We need the horsepower to not just reach our geographical region but overseas as well. We need the benefit of maintaining essential doctrinal standards and practices in the quality of churches we plant. We need the benefit of gifted and experienced church planters. We need the care and support required to launch and sustain a church plant. We need the finances to do all this. This union of churches will
87

fulfill this role through a partnership represented by the Regional Assembly of Elders. The Regional Church Planting Committee will allow church planting to be done wisely and efficiently at the regional level. The Regional Leaders will serve to augment the mission and likely exceed previous effectiveness because of the support of the three regional committees. The Leadership Team will further serve the overall mission by supporting local planting, providing key resources, and providing a way for regional, national, and international missions to work together. Participating in this union of churches is an exciting prospect as we seek to obey the call from our Lord to fulfill the Great Commission. Cooperation in Care Local churches need the accountability, advice, and assistance of other elders and churches. No eldership is capable enough to independently navigate through all the ups and downs of pastoral leadership on its own. They need others who are wrestling with the same issues and have experienced Gods grace in leadership in such a way that they can offer some help and advice. Pastors need to lock arms with other pastors who will ask the hard questions and stand by them through the storms. Pastors need to create relationships with other pastors and churches that are not merely informal associations, but partnerships that can carry the weight needed to help them and call them to account when the going gets tough. This union of churches will fulfill this role through the friendship and support of the Regional Assembly of Elders. This care will be spearheaded regionally by the Regional Leader. Additional resources and support will be provided by the Leadership Team. A distinctive of Sovereign Grace Ministries has been the level of care provided for pastors. This new polity should allow us to more consistently and thoroughly provide care so that our pastors and our churches can thrive. Doctrinal Fidelity The life of our churches and the faithfulness and fruitfulness of our ministries revolve around our doctrinal fidelity and vitality. This point cannot be overstated. Joining with a union of churches is a powerful way to maintain doctrinal fidelity through the protective effect of committing together to a common statement of faith, of vital fellowship and partnership with like-minded churches, and of the maintenance of essential ordination standards and practices. Pastors need help assessing and appointing elders for the future health of their church. While the bulk of this responsibility will be carried out locally, this union will help in setting sound standards and objectively evaluating the suitability of candidates raised up from within the church. Each eldership will always have some degree of bias toward a candidate that comes from its own church. An outside perspective is a healthy and needed check. Additionally, cooperation in ordination and commitment to ordination standards protect our church from the dangerous decline that will come if we slacken our ordination standards. Accountability in Crisis We all need help in dealing with severe crises in areas of church discipline and conflict. Some of the hardest moments in church life will come when we have to practice church discipline or have to deal with the potential removal of an errant elder. Those are moments when we would be foolish to act independently. Cooperation, advice, and a place for godly accountability are hugely important in protecting our church and preserving our future ability to fulfill our mission. Without such recourse, our churches might be in serious danger of either permissiveness on one side or injustice on the other. Outside assistance and accountability is a must in dealing with these key church crises. This polity will look to local churches to perform the bulk of conciliation and judicial functions needed in church life. However, the Regional Judicial Committee and the Court of Appeals will serve as a panel of well-trained elders who provide a place for appeals when there is a crisis locally. This is an important and necessary aspect of cooperation if we hope to avoid destructive conflict locally when we are unable to resolve a crisis.

88

Additionally, the advice of the Regional Leader and other Regional elders might be instrumental in resolving conflict and difficult situations in the local church before any official appeal is needed. No Loss of Authority Our participation will always be voluntary. The polity proposal makes no claim on our churches assets. Neither does it seek to prevent any church from leaving if necessary. The association is from start to finish entirely voluntary. Now, this doesnt mean that it isnt substantial. We are granting permission to this union of churches to perform certain appropriate extra-local functions, and we are committing to certain theological and polity principles. We are allowing others to make statements about our departure if they deem it divisive or heretical. Such concessions are important if we want this voluntary association to have teeth to it and not be something we can easily join or leave with diminished commitment or consequence. But none of these takes away the fixed voluntary nature of the association. If an eldership determines that the partnership is no longer beneficial to their church, they may withdraw without financial or legal penalty. This retention of the right to freely associate is why I believe this current polity proposal is essentially a Congregational polity agreement and therefore one an eldership with Congregational leanings can join in good conscience. This polity is not the only option a Congregationalist eldership or church may choose. There are various associations available. What this association or union of churches offers is a degree of cooperation and care that exceeds many other Congregational associations in order that we can maximize our ability to express our union in Christ, contribute toward the Great Commission, and continue to thrive together for the glory of Christ. These are the goals of this polity.

89

90

Appendix IV-B: A Defense of the Proposal from a Presbyterian Perspective

- Matthew W. Wassink In a polity committee meeting recently, I was tasked with writing an appeal for why someone with Presbyterian leanings could support this Book of Church Order. Before jumping into the substance of that task, it would be good to qualify what this means. The intent of this paper is not to a write an apologetic for the Presbyterian view, in essence one of authority being shared in some proportion among elders both locally and regionally through a system of representation. Rather, this is my attempt to explain why someone who holds to such theological convictions can submit to and even enthusiastically support the proposed polity. This being the case, what follows will not attempt to convince readers of the Scriptural support in favor of a Presbyterian polity. Instead, this paper will elucidate how this BCO sufficiently meets that standard, assuming that the reader is already persuaded by either the biblical feasibility or prudence of such a governance structure. With that end in mind, it might also be helpful to share some of the background that has shaped my reading of Scripture on this point. The church of my youth was proudly big R Reformed. More than that, we were Dutch Reformed (think Canons of Dort)! Both sides of my family were exclusively affiliated with the Reformed Church in America or the Christian Reformed Church. All that to say, Presbyterian forms were the norm. In college however, I was introduced to John Piper and Desiring God. I was baptized as a believer and joined Bethlehem Baptist Church. In addition, I attended college and seminary at Bethel University, part of the same Baptist General Conference to which Bethlehem belonged. In short, I had enough experience in both Presbyterianism and Independency to have seen the blessings and warts of both systems firsthand. I still trend Presbyterian in my convictions, but I like to think it is an open eyed perspective. Having said all that by way of introduction, I am enthusiastic about the Biblical fidelity and great potential this BCO holds. In particular, here are the aspects of this polity that most please my Presbyterian heart: Demonstration of the Churchs Unity One of the great challenges facing the church at all times, but especially post-Reformation, is how to appropriately express the unity of the Body of Christ. Ephesians 4:3-4 calls us to a faithful expression of the fundamental organic unity that belongs to the Church in Christ. Similarly, John 17:20-21 makes clear that the way we demonstrate this unity serves as a substantial witness to the gospels truth and power. This spiritual unity should rightly find expression in visible forms of governance and mission. One of the greatest strengths of a polity of ecclesiastical interconnectedness is that it gives tangible evidence of the interdependence of local congregations visible in Scripture. Adding weight to this interpretation of Scripture is the reality that the early church carried forward this commitment to interdependence, even as they distanced themselves from an Apostolic office. Our first priority must remain to build biblically faithful doctrinal foundations, but this unity of belief should find expression in unity of governance. Historically, Reformed theologians have talked, not just about the gift of unity, but also about the obligation and calling of unity. The ecclesiastical union put forward in this BCO is a good and practical application of our spiritual unity while also recognizing that each local church is a complete church of Christ. Priority of Elder Rule
91

Christ rules the church as the Chief Shepherd and extends that rule through His Word. This is stated in the BCO but bears repeating. The ubiquitous testimony of Scripture is that churches are led, pastored, and taught by elders who serve under the authority of Scripture. Ours is a derived authority, granted to us only by extension of our fidelity to the inerrant and authoritative Word of God. Consequently, elders within a modified Presbyterian system serve as Christs representatives and with Christs authority. The derivative nature of this authority does not in any way negate the centrality of the office of elder to biblical governance. One of the great strengths of the Presbyterian governance is the way it promotes robust, healthy elderships in their proper ruling function with regard to teaching, membership, and discipline. One of the strengths of this BCO is the way it safeguards the biblical reality that there is no distinction between elders in terms of office, title or authority. All elders are pastors, with the same calling and commission. While acknowledging bi-vocational pastors, it also prevents us from drifting into a bifurcation of the office. Bi-vocational pastors in this BCO wont slip into merely white collar, educated or entrepreneurial men. Likewise, pastors who work for a church full-time wont become super-ministers of Word and Sacrament with greater training and more robust ordination standards. Additionally, the section on Local Church Polity does excellent work carefully articulating the character of elder rule within the congregation. The nature of the office is sufficiently established, while also giving a beneficial exhortation of a congregations role of involvement, counsel, support, and submission to an elderships rule. Conversely, it exhorts elders to consider, listen, and respond to the needs and concerns of the sheep as men who will one day give account to the Chief Shepherd. Representative Government The BCO combines the dual commitments of interdependency and elder rule in a system of modified Presbyterian representation. The partnership of this ecclesiastical union is expressed in decentralized regions that carry forward mission, care, and accountability through her elders. This ties extra-local authority to the office of elders under the authority of the Word. It also ensures that authority grows out of the local eldership and not a system of hierarchy or a parachurch organization. The representative nature of the polity extends to all extra-local positions and certifies that every decision of the Council of Elders, Executive Committee, or Leadership Team originated from the authority of local elderships. The increased regionalization of this polity also means that many of the extra-local functions that most closely affect a local church now happen in closer proximity. Any notion (accurate or not) that decisions were handed down is exchanged for a Regional Assembly of Elders (closely resembling a classis or presbytery) with great ownership over the mission and care of its represented churches. The idea of the RAE and its derivative committees or leaders as an outside or distant authority is foreign to this polity. An eldership should view the RAE as her own essential body and its structures as her own limbs. Similarly, the Council of Elders will serve as a constituent assembly that imbues elderships with ownership in the decisions, direction, mission, and faithfulness of Sovereign Grace. This embodies many of the greatest strengths of the Presbyterian system. Ordination Process & Standards Any polity that carries extra-local entailments and labors for expressed unity is treacherous without a balanced commitment to accountable orthodoxy. Like the best Presbyterian structures, this BCO endeavors to promote and protect the doctrinal fidelity of our ecclesiastical union. The prior commitment to elder rule and representative government means that our doctrine and holiness will only be as faithful as our elders. Indeed, the long-term health of our union, humanly speaking, will run through our elders. Knowing this, an ordination system of shared accountability between local elderships and the RAE is prudent. No responsible eldership or local church would submit to a representative system like the one
92

proposed if they didnt also have a stake in the quality of elder invited into the representative bodies. The system of ordination proposed in this BCO is not as robust as most Presbyterian examples. However, the shared responsibility between the local and extra-local elders seems a wise balance. Ordinationas spelled out in the BCOprotects the semi-autonomous nature of local church by codifying the place of local initiative and ongoing involvement in the assessment and training of an ordination candidate. The Presbyterian nature of ordination is softened by the intentionally limited role the RAE plays in placing any elder in a local congregation. Ordination initiates with the local eldership and terminates with their installation of the elder. Conversely, there is a necessary and appropriate involvement of the RAE in the examination of a candidates theological and moral fitness. The work of the regional Ordination Committee and vote of affirmation ensures that elders in Sovereign Grace are qualified and gifted for the task to which they have been called. In this way, ordination stands as vanguard to the churchs holiness in moral purity and especially doctrinal fidelity. This is a safeguard for all levels of Sovereign Grace, from the local pulpit where the sheep are fed to the Council of Elders where the orthodoxy of our standards is maintained. Circumscribed Accountability Of course, robust and appropriate ordination procedures and standards are only as strong as the systems of adjudication that provide accountability. A great strength of the Presbyterian system is its ability to protect the witness and holiness of the church and her officers, both locally and extra-locally. Within the BCO is a carefully circumscribed system of adjudication and discipline that provides accountability, while also protecting the local churchs semi-autonomous nature. Without repeating all the details of our Rules of Discipline, it puts forward established procedures that are intentionally delimited in nature. The RAE, CoE, and their judicatories do not have carte blanche authority to reach into the business of the local church. In addition to carefully prescribed areas of authority, there is a corresponding process of appeals for members and elders alike who find themselves facing discipline. This is a great strength and protection of a modified Presbyterian polity. Individuals know what they are held accountable to, how they will be held accountable, and how to appeal such accountability. Conversely, the process of adjudication prevents the maelstrom of self-sufficiency some elderships unsuspectingly promote. In addition to the protection of plurality, this system of circumscribed extra-local accountability assists elderships in promoting holiness and practicing biblical discipline. As elder-ruled churches in the Presbyterian tradition, charges of heresy, heterodoxy, or immorality (of a gross and/or persistent nature) are adjudicated by our fellow elders. This is necessary for at least two reasons. First, no church or eldership is omnicompetent. The need for outside assistance, especially in times of moral or doctrinal crisis, is witnessed throughout the New Testament. Second, a biblical recognition of sin provides a sobering reminder of our proclivity to self-deceive, not just individually, but corporately. An ecclesiastical union of representative judicatories is a great help in rescuing individuals and churches from error and fostering restoration. In these ways, our system of adjudication is in the best of the Presbyterian tradition. It promotes the glory of Christ, the purity of the church, and the restoration of the sinner, locally and extra-locally. It provides accountability, protection, and justice for all members, pastors, and Sovereign Grace leaders. Promotes Mission Its not enough just to have a neutral polity that doesnt get in the way of mission. Our goal should be a polity that functions to serve our greater goal of advancing the gospel. So then, this BCO expresses the Presbyterian impulse that gifted men should be appropriately and accountably deployed for extra-local service in support of mission and church planting. Even outside of a
93

Presbyterian interpretation of Acts 15, it clearly shows that the Apostles, elders, and congregations of the early church intentionally approached their interconnectedness and extra-local relationships to serve the greater mission. By way of encouragement in our current season, as the polity of Acts develops greater structure, the missional zeal and effectiveness do not diminish. This reflects the efforts of leadership to keep developing polity for the good of mission, and their recognition that as the church grew and expanded, new infrastructure was needed. The development of this BCO recognizes similar needs. To quote a prominent Presbyterian who knows a thing or two about promoting mission: It is natural for new churches and ministries to try very hard to stay informal, non-codified, and non-centralized. But part of what makes a movement dynamic is a unified vision, and that always requires some codification and control. As time goes on, to maintain the main engine of movement-dynamics a unified vision a ministry must adopt some of the aspects of institutions. A strong movement, then, occupies the difficult space between being a freewheeling organism and a disciplined organization. A movement that refuses to take on some organizational characteristics authority, tradition, unity of belief, and quality control will fragment and dissipate. A movement that does not also resist the inevitable tendency toward complete institutionalization will lose its vitality and effectiveness as well. (Tim Keller)12 The great potential of this polity is that it combines proven Presbyterian practices with our history of advancing the gospel through church planting. This polity was careful not to flatten out leadership and inhibit gifted men from serving and advancing mission and care. The way authority has been repositioned in the local church and extends itself through representation should not eliminate our ability to position our most gifted leaders to promote the good stewarding of their gifts. For those concerned that this BCO is overly specific, it is important to recognize that the more clearly we articulate what defines our polity, values, and doctrine up front, the more it will function well for us in the decades to come. In many ways, this is an intentionally curtailed BCO, meant to balance overly structured policies that impede missional momentum while also preventing missional and doctrinal drift. To that end, there were intentional limits on procedure and bureaucracy in the hopes that it will help stimulate mission. Engaged Partnership As a modified Presbyterian polity, this will require robust engagement from its elders. In a similar way that a healthy church functions most properly when all its members are involved in service, so does a healthy polity. By pushing authority and many responsibilities deep into the regions, new expectations emerge. Far from reducing the relational components of our shared history, this polity raises the bar. There is a broadening of responsibility in everything from financing mission to adjudication to accountability. The relational requirements keep us from leaning too heavily or paternalistically upon our largest churches or most gifted men, without unduly eliminating them from their own participation. In any representative, Presbyterian governance, it is obligatory upon all churches and elders to take ownership of their particular call to substantive participation. A local eldership that doesnt promote participation and equip her people for the work of ministry is inherently limited by the narrow scope of gifts and time represented by the few that do serve. Conversely, when the responsibility and participation for service and engagement is broadened in a local church, the entire body benefits. The same is true extra-locally. We have created a polity that carries incumbent responsibilities with the rights of membership. Likewise, the increased regionalization doesnt diminish the importance of relationships; it
12

Ministry Movements Redeemer City to City (blog), July 27, 2010, http://redeemercitytocity.com/blog/view.jsp?Blog_param=203

94

heightens them. Fully engaged partnership is necessary for the benefits of this polity and mission to function. Like mission in the New Testament church, the future health and growth of our ecclesiastical union will depend on the support and work of interdependent churches and elderships. In this way, the proposed polity combines many of the strengths of the Presbyterian system with historical strengths of Sovereign Grace. It is for these reasons and many more that I heartily support this Book of Church Order. I believe this polity is worthy of our support, both in its ratification and its implementation. Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:20-21)

95

96

Appendix IV-C: A Defense of the Proposal from an Apostolic-Presbyterian Perspective

- Nathan Sasser13 INTRODUCTION Similarities and Differences between Apostolic-Presbyterian Polity and the SG Book of Church Order This defense of the proposed SG Book of Church Order is written from the perspective of one who is convinced that the Bible teaches an apostolic-presbyterian form of church government. In brief, this apostolic-presbyterian position involves the following claims: 1. Scripture teaches elder rule rather than congregationalism (Acts 20:28; Rom. 12:8; Phil. 1:1; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:4-5; 5:17; Heb. 13:7, 17; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). 2. Scripture teaches that elders are typically ordained by apostles (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:1ff., 5:22; Titus 1:5) who also adjudicate charges against elders (1 Tim. 5:19-21) and may decide cases of church discipline when the local church has failed to act appropriately (1 Cor. 5:1-5; 2 Cor. 2:5-11; 1 Tim. 1:20). 3. Scripture teaches that apostles are commissioned by groups of elders (Acts 13:1ff.) and are accountable to them (Acts 15). So groups of elders directly or indirectly exercise extra-local authority. An apostolic-presbyterian view of the church clearly expresses the principle of extra-local ecclesiastical unity. In the New Testament, local churches are not autonomous but are responsible for one anothers welfare, holiness, orthodoxy, and mission. They share their spiritual and material resources. Different local churches are part of one corporate body: when one part suffers, the whole suffers, and when one rejoices, all rejoice with it. All Christians would agree that the church universal is one body, but many argue that the universality of the church does not entail anything about extra-local government. They might claim that local churches can express their spiritual unity simply through cooperative mission efforts, mutual counsel and encouragement, and through membership in non-authoritative associations or parachurch groups. According to the apostolic-presbyterian view, extra-local church government gives proper expression to the universality of the church and the unity of its faith. The SG polity proposal is rightly described as a modified Presbyterian polity, and as such, it only partially reflects the three apostolic-presbyterian claims listed above. As for the first claim, the BCO unequivocally teaches elder rule over and against congregationalism. As for the second claim, the BCO does not involve apostles. It does not give any special class of leaders the authority to ordain elders, adjudicate charges against them, or intervene in local church discipline. Strictly speaking, these authoritative apostolic functions are given only to the local eldership. However, for all practical purposes, extra-local bodies of elders (the Regional Assemblies of Elders and Council of Elders) play an authoritative role in all of these matters (although some of my independent or Congregationalist friends may dispute my choice of the word authoritative). Furthermore, many of the non-authoritative functions of New Testament apostles are carried out by Regional Leaders and the Leadership Team. In various ways, these leaders provide 13 Phil Sasser was given the responsibility to discuss the book of church order from an apostolic perspective. Phil delegated this task to Nathan Sasser, but takes responsibility for this essay, with which he fully agrees.
97

strategic counsel, encouragement, and teaching to local churches, and coordinate and spearhead church planting. As for the third claim, strictly speaking, the BCO avoids saying explicitly that groups of elders exercise God-given extra-local authority. However, for all practical purposes, the Regional Assembly of Elders and Council of Elders do exercise extra-local authority as delegated to them by SG elders, especially over church planting and the moral and doctrinal fidelity of elders. In the BCO, these assemblies of elders must shoulder a heavier burden than in a purely apostolic-presbyterian government, because the authoritative apostolic functions now fall upon them. Despite some noteworthy differences, the BCO embodies some of the most important elements of the apostolic-presbyterian view, including the most important principle of the apostolic-presbyterian view: the principle of extra-local ecclesiastical unity and authority. This essay will single out two particular benefits of extra-local ecclesiastical unity and authority. First, it guards the confessional fidelity of our churches elderships, and second, it gives the visible church as such full responsibility for carrying out its mission. Confessional Accountability The purpose of polity is to guard the churchs holiness, which includes not only moral integrity but also doctrinal purity. One of the great advantages of adopting a modified Presbyterian polity is that assemblies of elders can hold one another accountable for their confessional fidelity. Having a confession of faith is wonderful, but without a polity to give it authority, it cannot function effectively for the church. A polity with a degree of extra-local authority guards the confessional integrity and fidelity of the pulpit more effectively than pure independency. Historically, independent-congregationalist churches have adopted confessions of faith to define the theological basis of their churches, associations, and institutions.14 But congregationalism seems to be at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting the confessional faithfulness of the pulpit. Anyone who makes a credible profession of faith in Christ ought to be admitted to church membership. Hopefully, our church membership will include many brand new Christians, very young people, the mentally infirm, and others who by virtue of their gifts or life circumstances simply have not been able to enter into a close study of the whole system of Christian doctrine. Hopefully our membership rolls will include people who disagree with points of our confession. It seems unreasonable to ask the congregation to make a determination about the confessional fidelity of the very people who are teaching them our confessional theology in the first place. This is not at all to insult Christian lay people or deny their sober responsibility to test all that they hear against the Word of God and vigorously protest error. It is simply to acknowledge the fact that 14 For examples in the Baptist tradition, see Mark Dever, The Noble Task: The Pastor as Preacher, in Polity: A Collection of Historic Baptist Documents, edited by Mark Dever (Nine Marks Ministries, 2001), 10-14; Greg Wills, The Church: Baptists and Their Churches, in Polity, 28-33; J.L. Reynolds, Church Polity, or the Kingdom of Christ, in Polity, 334-342; Tom Nettles, The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, vol. 1 (Geanies House, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2005), 31-34, 46-8, 118, 205-207. These works do indicate a range of attitudes among Baptists regarding confessions and their usage. David Dockery writes, There remains a sector of Southern Baptist life that is quite hesitant to acknowledge the place of normative, doctrinal confessions for fear of its resulting in creedalism (Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future, edited by David Dockery [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009], 16). In his contribution to the same volume R. Albert Mohler, Jr., calls Southern Baptists to return to a robust confessionalism, although in the context of Southern Baptist history it is not obvious which confession or what kind of confessionalism Mohler wants to return to (30).
98

God has appointed elders in particular to devote themselves to the Word of God so that they may be specialists in the identification and refutation of error. If elders uniquely bear responsibility to hold one another accountable for confessional fidelity, can a single local eldership adequately fulfill this responsibility internally? A local plurality of elders certainly does provide the first and most basic form of confessional accountability. But a single eldership might easily be too small, too acrimoniously divided, too dominated by a particularly gifted man, or too blinded by personal affection to effectively adjudicate every doctrinal dispute that arises. In such cases, appeal to an authoritative extra-local body is crucially helpful. In the Presbyterian tradition, charges of heterodoxy are adjudicated by fellow pastors, not merely from the local church itself, but from all the churches in a region. Presbyterian pastors are required to both understand and believe their confessional documents, and hence are well equipped to examine candidates for ordination and to investigate charges of heterodoxy. Presbyterian history is rich with examples of its courts identifying and stopping subtle and dangerous theological errors in its ministers. The independentcongregationalist churches simply do not have a comparable history. Thus for the most robust tradition of reflection on confessionalism, we naturally look to Presbyterianism.15 Furthermore, our modified Presbyterian polity is well suited to guard the confessional integrity of our churches. The Regional Assemblies and Council of Elders can censure elders or even disavow their ordination if they persist in moral or doctrinal errors. Nor are the church members left to fend for themselves in such extreme circumstances: the Regional Assembly of Elders is committed to providing pastoral care and new pastors for churches whose elders are removed or disavowed. The Mission of the Church It is fairly obvious that no local church is omnicompetent to carry out the Great Commission. Virtually every local church depends upon other churches, institutions, associations, seminaries, missionary organizations, or church-planting networks for all sorts of purposes. But this dependence raises an ecclesiological problem. Too often, the church ends up delegating aspects of its mission (witness, teaching, etc.) to institutions which are not the church. These institutions are not merely instruments of the churches, acting entirely under the direction of church officers, but autonomous or semi-autonomous agents. If Independency is the case, then this is almost a necessary state of affairs. In Independency, no church or eldership, acting alone or jointly with other churches or elderships, has any ecclesiastical authority in affairs beyond its own membership. If Independency is the case, the church as such is not adequately equipped with officers or authority to oversee extra-local matters. The result is that Independents must either function like Presbyterians, with churches or pastors exercising joint authority over extra-local cooperative efforts, or else the government of cooperative efforts is simply given to a corporate board without any ecclesiastical status at all.

See for example James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868; reprinted, Vestavia Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2009) 277-303; Samuel Miller, The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, n.d.); David W. Hall, ed., The Practice of Confessional Subscription (Oak Ridge, TN: Covenant Foundation, 1997); Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012). Of course, confessional Presbyterianism is absolutely not impervious to heterodoxy and spiritual decline. For a sobering and informative post mortem analysis of such decline, see Ian Hamiltons The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy: Drifting from the Truth in Confessional Scottish Churches (Geanies House, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2010).
15

99

This cannot be right. We should expect the church to have all the equipment it needs to carry out its mission. The SG polity proposal, in agreement with traditional Presbyterianism and apostolicpresbyterianism, recognizes that there is extra-local authority in the church which makes it possible for local churches to jointly govern extra-local aspects of mission, without creating board-run parachurch organizations. In this polity, the SG churches are not delegating their mission to a missions board or parachurch organization. Our missiology is thus thoroughly grounded in our ecclesiology. For one thing, only the Regional Assemblies of Elders can authorize SG church plants. For another thing, Sovereign Grace Ministries (including the Pastors College) is entirely under the authority of the Council of Elders. The Executive Committee that ultimately oversees Sovereign Grace Ministries is a Committee of the Council of Elders, and each member is voted upon by the Council. The Executive Committee is just that: the committee of an ecclesiastical body, not the semi-autonomous board of a parachurch organization. We affirm that the visible church is the only organization on earth explicitly commissioned and equipped by Christ to disciple the nations. No other parachurch organization has been thus commissioned and equipped as the church of Jesus Christ. Because the visible church should not substantially delegate its mission to another organization, Sovereign Grace Ministries is therefore intentionally organized as an instrument of the Sovereign Grace churches that helps to facilitate their cooperation in relationship and a common mission. Its Executive Committee, Leadership Team, and employees occupy no higher or different church office than any other elder. As men endowed with a range of gifts to provide leadership to the church in its broader mission, the Directors and members of the Executive Committee are commissioned to such unique tasks by the Sovereign Grace elders, to whom they are accountable. They have no special authority in the churches, other than that which has been specifically delegated to them by the elders. (BCO I.K) One benefit of our refusal to delegate the churchs mission to parachurch organizations is that our theology, our confession of faith, can fully inform every aspect of our shared mission. Confessional minimalism is widespread in evangelicalism, where independent churches often associate around parachurch entities for cooperation in limited tasks related to mission. Such parachurch entities and associations typically have statements of faith, which are as brief as possible, so as to embrace the widest possible constituency. They demand just enough doctrinal agreement to make it possible to cooperate in a given task. But the proposed polity requires that every aspect of our shared mission flow from our shared doctrine, as expressed in our Statement of Faith. Our Statement of Faith is not minimalist, and hopefully it will become even fuller in the future. Conclusion: Ecclesiastical union Those of us who believe that the biblical vision of the church is apostolic believe that individual local churches and their elderships are not autonomous and not omnicompetent to carry out the mission entrusted to them by the Lord. We see local churches as organically united in a family, a family that joyfully shares material and spiritual resources, cooperates in mission, and takes responsibility for one anothers spiritual health and confessional fidelity; and we believe that extra-local government makes all of this possible. We are not willing to leave this robust extra-local unity in the dustbin of the first century. In the New Testament, when local churches strayed in doctrine or practice, faithful men from without came after them, at great personal cost, with both tearful pleading and a rod of discipline if necessary (2 Corinthians). This is what we want for our churches, and if we lose it, we lose a vital, critical piece of authentic New Testament church life. We want to place ourselves under the authority of the Council of Elders (Acts 15-16); we want to align our church life with that of the other churches of God (2 Cor. 11:16); we want the men we ordain to have the approval and accreditation of church officers from outside
100

our own church (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:22; Titus 1:5ff.); we want church officers from outside our own church to help us in judicial matters when necessary (1 Tim. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 5); we want our churches to receive edification and guidance from spiritual fathers and brothers who have more than a casual, nonbinding relationship with usmen who will not merely warn us about false teachers in our midst but excommunicate them if necessary (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18). These are the biblical benefits and protections which apostolic continuationists find indispensible to the life of our churches. We do not consider it an imposition to give of our time and resources to other churches so that they may have the same benefits, but we consider it our privilege and duty, since we are all members of one body. Mere associations of strictly independent churches cannot provide these benefits. Parachurch affiliation cannot provide these benefits. Big evangelical conferences cannot provide these benefits. The polity proposed in the Book of Church Order does provide these benefits. If this polity is ratified, it will make a clear statement that the Sovereign Grace churches are not bound together by their common affiliation to a central ministry. The Partnership Agreement is not between a church and Sovereign Grace Ministries, but between one church and all of the other Sovereign Grace churches. The Sovereign Grace churches together voluntarily form a unified ecclesiastical body to glorify God as an expression of the bride of Christ. The churches share spiritual and material resources for the furtherance of our common mission, under a common government which guards our fidelity to our common Statement of Faith and standards of corporate holiness. A local church joins itself to the Sovereign Grace body of churches when its elders, representing the church, enter into this partnership agreement with all the other Sovereign Grace churches. (From the Preamble to the Partnership Agreement, BCO III.F). Our churches are not loyal to some central corporate office or a revered preacher or leader. They are loyal to each other, striving together with a common confession in a common mission. If the churches adopt this polity and the corporate headquarters were to shut down the next day, nothing substantial would have changed at all about the Sovereign Grace churches or their interrelationships. The churches would still be bound together in Christ in a single body by their common government, confession, mission, and mutual love; and they would carry on just as before. One of the blessings of the past two years of our history is that there are no superficial reasons left to stay in Sovereign Grace. Association with Sovereign Grace is bad for publicity. The only reasons any church would want to stay in Sovereign Grace is if they share its doctrine and values and want to authorize other churches to help them stay faithful to that doctrine and those values. We have need of each other, and we have need of more than casual, non-binding, unobtrusive accountability that respects our alleged autonomy. The so-called evangelical world is awash in fads, trends, and waves and winds of doctrine; from without, we face the attacks of Satan and the dark tides of a godless world that hates and needs Christ. Only the church has the Lords promise that it will stand against the gates of Hadesnot seminaries, not mission boards, not associations for co-belligerent Christian activity. This polity proposal gives our churches a place to stand, as the church, together.

101

102

Appendix V: Subscription to the Statement of Faith and Submission to the Book of Church Order
Introduction If the Sovereign Grace churches ratify this Book of Church Order, our Statement of Faith will function as a confessional document that constitutes the public testimony of our union of churches. Agreement with the Statement of Faith and submission to the Book of Church Order will be necessary conditions for serving as an elder in a Sovereign Grace church. It is worth discussing, therefore, why we have a confessional document and how elders in particular relate to the Statement of Faith and Book of Church Order. The Usefulness of Confessions Creeds and confessions serve at least a fourfold purpose.16 First, they serve as instruments for teaching in the church, and hence help fulfill the churchs mission to teach disciples everything that her Lord has commanded her (Matt. 28:20).17 A confession of faith defines in broad terms what a church regards as constituting theological maturity for its members.18 Furthermore, Christians who are contemplating membership in a church have to know what a church believes, in some level of detail, before they can intelligently join it.19 Second, a confession provides a witness to the world, informing the world how this church understands the meaning of Scripture, the message of God to mankind. For the non-Christian world, the churchs confession has evangelistic and apologetic value. For the Christian world, the churchs confession has an ecumenical value, defining the areas in which this particular church agrees with other churches throughout the world and throughout history. It also has a polemical value, because it defines the areas in which the church disagrees with the beliefs of other churches. Many of the great historical creeds and confessions of the church arose from the furnaces of conflict, when the church was forced to define its understanding of Scripture over and against heresy.20 Third, a confession of faith is doxological: the basic worship cry Jesus is Lord! is in itself a confession in the sense that it is both a public declaration of praise and a public declaration of doctrinal commitment.21 Thus those passages in the NT with creedal sensibilities are sometimes also doxological, or issue in doxology (e.g. Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Tim. 1:15-17).22 A churchs confession defines the content of a churchs worship. The confession describes the God the church praises and the gospel it celebrates in its songs and sacraments. Fourth, a confession of faith protects the church from false doctrine by defining what the church regards as true doctrine. A confession thus functions as a basis for discipline. The role of a confession in matters of doctrinal discipline sounds negative and gloomy, so it is important to note that it is only one of several benefits of a confession. Nevertheless, the church absolutely needs a criterion for identifying orthodoxy and heterodoxy so that it can protect itself from those men who arise in our midst speaking twisted things (Acts 20:30). It is not enough to hold up a Bible and say that it is our only standard for identifying 16 See e.g. Ian Hamilton, The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy: Drifting from the Truth in Confessional Scottish Churches (Geanies House, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2010) 9, 199-207. 17 James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868; reprinted, Vestavia Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2009) 299-301. 18 Carl Trueman , The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012) 177-180. 19 Bannerman 296-9. 20 Bannerman 301-302. 21 Trueman 136. 22 Trueman 137-8.
103

orthodoxy. Heretics often believe in the inerrancy of Scripture toothey simply interpret Scripture differently. The church needs a statement of what it takes the Scriptures to mean. It has often been noted that every church has a confession or creed; only some of them are written down. Without a written confession of faith, the criterion of orthodoxy is just whatever the pastor of the church happens to believe. The creed exists in his mind and hence is not available for examination against Scripture itself. Similarly, the Roman Catholic church requires implicit faith in its teaching, even from those who do not know what that teaching is.23 It is the unwritten creeds which threaten the authority of Scripture, not written ones, since unwritten creeds can never by tested against and hence subordinated to the authority of Scripture. In relationship to this proposed Book of Church Order, we are primarily concerned with the role a confession of faith plays in the churchs discipline. Therefore it is necessary to point out that it is pastors, not congregants, who are required to believe the entirety of a churchs confession of faith. Pastors and ordinary church members relate to the churchs confession of faith in different ways.24 The simplest faith in Jesus as Lord suffices to gain someone admission to church membership (Rom. 10:9-10). The Christian life necessarily starts with doctrinal milk, with gospel basics, but it ought to progress to theological maturity (1 Cor. 3:1; Heb. 6:1-2). Elders (pastors) are those who are uniquely called and qualified to guide the church from doctrinal to milk to meat through their teaching ministry. Elders are thus held to a higher standard of doctrinal competence than ordinary church members (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Jas. 3:1), not only so that they may teach sound doctrine, but also so that they may recognize and rebuke bad doctrine (Titus 1:9). A confession of faith represents a churchs goals for the theological maturity of its members. The pastors must serve as examples of theological maturity, and hence they must understand, subscribe to, teach, and defend that confession. A person need not have arrived at theological maturity in order to become a member of a church. Church membership is the very context in which that doctrinal growth and maturation occurs. Subscribing to the Statement of Faith Presbyterians have discussed and debated at length the nature of confessional subscription.25 How tightly are a churchs officers (i.e., its pastors) bound to believe the entirety of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms? Some have advocated loose or system subscription, according to which a pastor vows to uphold something less than every doctrine articulated in the confession of faith. Historically, the Westminster Confessions teachings about the role of the civil magistrate, the Sabbath, and the nature of the six days of creation have been flashpoints of controversy in Presbyterian circles. Should pastoral candidates who disagree with the Confessions teaching only on these points be ordained? The so-called loose subscriptionists might say yes, while the so-called full or strict subscriptionists say that they cannot be ordained. Sovereign Grace does not have to deal with the exact same issues (Sabbath, the civil magistrate, etc.) as Presbyterians because we do not subscribe to the Westminster Standards. However, we do have to answer the question of the nature of confessional subscription. The Book of Church Order opts for full subscription. If subscription to a confession leaves the subscriber at liberty to reject points that he judges minor or unimportant, then the confession virtually ceases to have any authority at all. If we were forced to choose, it would be far better to have a shorter confession to which our pastors fully subscribe, than to have a longer, more detailed confession to which our pastors only loosely subscribe. In his book The 23 Bannerman 304-306. 24 Trueman 66-71. 25 See for example the range of views presented in Hall, The Practice of Confessional Subscription.
104

Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy: Drifting from the Truth in Confessional Scottish Churches,26 Ian Hamilton documents how loosening measures which were calculated to give relief to pastors with minor confessional exceptions undermined the integrity of confessional subscription altogether and ushered theological liberalism into the church. In the Partnership Agreement in section III.F of the Book of Church Order, the Formula of Subscription to the SG Statement of Faith appears as follows: I declare sincerely before God that I believe that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the SG Statement of Faith fully agree with the Scriptures, and I own that Statement as the statement and confession of my faith. I promise to teach and defend these doctrines in public and private. I promise further that if in the future I come to have reservations about any of these doctrines, I will share these reservations with my eldership and the Regional Assembly of Elders. Substantially the same Formula of Subscription appears in the ordination vows in II.H.3.f. Our Formula of Subscription echoes the language of the Formula adopted by the Church of Scotland in 1711.27 This sober pledge leaves no room for disagreement. The Formula says that I believe that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the SG Statement of Faith fully agree with the Scriptures. This simply means that the Bible teaches these doctrines; these doctrines are not only consistent with but supported by the Bible. The denial of the doctrines in the Statement of Faith is inconsistent with and unsupported by the Bible. The statement does not mean that there are not other faithful formulations of the Bibles teaching on these points, or fuller formulations, or better formulations. For example, most historic Reformed confessions might actually do a better job stating the Bibles teaching on many points than our Statement of Faith does, even though they are in substantial agreement with one another. The point is just that what the Statement of Faith teaches is what the Bible teaches. Furthermore, the subscriber affirms that he believes what the Statement of Faith (and back of it, the Bible) teaches: I own that Statement as the statement and confession of my faith. At every point, a congregant can be confident that her church teaches, and her pastor believes, every sentence she reads in the Statement of Faith. It may come as a surprise then that our Book of Church Order discusses the possibility that an elder may have reservations about or exceptions to the Statement of Faith. For example, II.H.3.f says the following: Prior to taking ordination vows, the candidate must inform his local eldership and the Regional Assembly of Elders of any and all reservations or disagreements he has with the SG Statement of Faith. (He shall put these exceptions down in writing; each elders exceptions shall be kept on record with the local eldership, the Regional Assembly of Elders, and Sovereign Grace Ministries). The Regional Assembly of Elders shall determine the significance of the candidates scruples. If the exception is a trivial semantic scruple and not a substantive difference with any doctrine in the Statement of Faith, then the candidate may subscribe to the Statement of Faith. However, if it is determined that the candidate substantially disagrees with any of the doctrines of the Statement of Faith, he may not subscribe. If the candidates exceptions to the Statement of Faith prevent him from subscribing to it, the Ordination Committee shall recommend to him a course of study on the relevant doctrines, if the candidate is willing, in the hopes that his scruples might be overcome. 26 Geanies House, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2010. 27 As quoted by J. Ligon Duncan, III in Owning the Confession: Subscription in the Scottish Presbyterian Tradition, in Hall, ed., The Practice of Confessional Subscription, 82.
105

Even those who hold to full or strict subscription do leave room for scruples or reservations, provided that, in the end, they amount to different ways of saying the same thing as the confession. For example, Samuel Miller advises pastoral candidates who take exceptions to the Westminster Standards to explain their exceptions to the presbytery. If the Presbytery, after this fair understanding, should be of the opinion, that the excepted points were of little or no importance, and interfered with no article of faith, and should be willing to receive his subscription in the usual way, he may proceed.28 Note that the exceptions must not interfere with any article of faiththat is, the exceptions must not constitute a substantial disagreement with the confession, but only a different way of arriving at materially the same doctrine. Judging the difference between a merely apparent doctrinal disagreement and a real, substantial doctrinal disagreement is tricky business, which is not left up to ones individual self-judgment but to ones fellow elders in the presbytery (in our case, the Regional Assembly of Elders). Submitting to the Book of Church Order The Book of Church Order sets a much higher bar for subscription to the Statement of Faith than it does for submission to the Book of Church Order. The first draft of the Book of Church Order, presented at the Pastors Conference in November 2012, required elders to affirmthe polity of the Sovereign Grace churches as stated in the Book of Church Order, without taking any exceptions to it (31). This language unduly put a stumbling block before many who did not oppose the polity overall, but who disagreed with some of the assertions contained in the Book of Church Order. The revised Book of Church Order seeks to remove such stumbling blocks. Every elder must affirm the following: I submit without exception to the explicitly mandated polity practices of the Sovereign Grace Book of Church Order. I affirm that the form of government contained in the SG Book of Church Order is a wise and suitable application of Scriptural principles. (III.G; cf. II.H.3.h, i). Notice that pastors do not have to agree with every doctrinal assertion in the Book of Church Order. They merely have to agree to follow the church government practices which the Book of Church Order lays down. They also must affirm that the form of government laid out in the Book of Church Order is a wise and suitable application of Scriptural principles. They do not have to believe that all or any of the form of government is explicitly or directly taught in Scripture or obligatory for all Christians. Some elders may be willing to submit to the Book of Church Order because they are convinced Presbyterians; some may be independent-congregationalists with a high view of associations; some may believe in apostles but be willing to see assemblies of elders fulfilling many apostolic roles; some may think the Bible teaches no polity, and they accept ours simply on pragmatic grounds; and there are perhaps more possibilities. Submission to the Book of Church Order does not mean that an elder agrees with the General Principles of Section I or with other doctrinal assertions in the Book of Church Order. Submission simply requires that a man in good conscience, and for whatever reasons, can follow the explicitly mandated practices of the Book of Church Order and generally hold that they are a wise and suitable application of Scriptural principles. Strengthening the Statement of Faith Sovereign Graces current Statement of Faith has historically served the purpose of signaling that we are, as the website has it, evangelical, Reformed, and charismatic. But by and large, the Statement of Faith has not carried a heavy load in the life of our churches. Our pastors have had little reason to closely examine the Statement of Faith and compare it with their own beliefs in order to determine whether they 28 Samuel Miller, The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, n.d.) 102.
106

are fit for service in Sovereign Grace. But in our new polity, the Statement of Faith not only constitutes our public testimony; it also provides the only standard whereby we can judge the orthodoxy and heterodoxy of our pastors. It is hoped that the elders of Sovereign Grace will move to strengthen the Statement of Faith in the near future.

107

108

Appendix VI: SGM International Partners

The polity committee did not take up the issue of polity as it relates to SGMs international partners, be they our formal associate members or more informal relationships where SGM is nonetheless meaningfully involved. There were a number of reasons for this: Although polity is not unimportant for any church, the most pressing polity issues within Sovereign Grace at present relate to churches that are formally Sovereign Grace churches, with the various governance, accountability, and procedural implications that entails. The nature of our relationship with many of our international partners differs significantly from the relationships that exist within the U.S. and immediately contiguous countries. We did not think it appropriate to propose specific polity structures in places where our involvement serves mainly to serve and support our partners through relationship, leadership training, financial support, etc., and does not involve issues of polity/governance. The policy proposal we developed has particular relevance for churches that are geographically proximate, and it is uncertain (a) how easily this could be implemented in international settings where SGMs presence is limited, and (b) how appropriate it is (at least in this specific form) to the particular cultural settings of our international partners.

For these reasons, the polity proposal we have put forth applies to our churches in the U.S. and Sovereign Grace churches in contiguous countries. The potential application of this polity (a) to SGM churches geographically distant from the U.S., (b) to SGM churches in countries with very few SGM churches, and (c) to associate churches and to informal relationships, will require more detailed knowledge of those relationships and interaction with those leaders. SGs Relationship with International Partners As we explore the application of polity to churches that fall into these three categories, the following principles should be recognized and applied: 1. The most important factor in our unity with such churches is doctrinal. Although church polity is important, in these relationships it is not determinative and, depending upon the church, it may not be a significant factor in our ongoing partnership. 2. A central goal in our polity formulation has been the preservation and facilitation of our mission together. Given the unique nature of these relationships, we do not want to insist upon a polity structure that hinders our ability to support our partners in their mission. 3. Although we based our polity formulation on theological foundations, we recognize that (a) there are other polity structures that can be biblically supported, and (b) the precise application of a polity structure may differ in geographically and culturally diverse locations. Therefore, we want to ensure that whatever polity applications are made to our partners are situationally and culturally appropriate, are consistent with the laws of the countries in which our churches reside, serve and not hinder our partners, and strengthen and not weaken our relationships with our partners. The purpose of the above qualifications is twofold: to communicate our ongoing commitment to our international partners and to assure them that their continuing participation in Sovereign Grace is not contingent upon their fitting immediately into our new polity structures.

109

Potential Avenues for International Partners Our desire to be flexible with our international partnerships does not mean, however, that we do not believe that this polity can benefit our partners and strengthen our relationships. We foresee our international partnerships taking different forms as our polity is implemented. 1. Full Inclusion: It is our hope that as many of our international partners as possible can find a place in a region and link arms with other SG elders. We recommend that the initial forming of our new regions take such partners into account in hopes of including them. 2. Eventual Inclusion. Where there are geographic or cultural barriers that hinder the kind of close interaction the polity envisions, we envision the church planting endeavors of such partners resulting in the formation of new regions around them. One of the goals of SGM is precisely to support partners in this endeavor. 3. Continuation of Partnership. For partners who believe that full inclusion is unworkable, or who desire our relationship to remain generally in its present form, we are committed to maintain and strengthen those partnerships. The Leadership Team will maintain responsibility for cultivating these relationships and ensuring (a) that our partners benefit from the avenues of care to which theyre accustomed, and (b) that SG as a whole benefits from the experience, wisdom, and relational wealth these partners contribute to us. We recommend that the executive board assign the leadership team responsibility, in close interaction with our international partners, for determining how our polity should be applied relative to those partners.

110

Appendix VII: Executive Summary

Polity, or church government, is intended to honor Jesus Christ through the ordering and protection of his church and the promotion of the gospel in accordance with his Word. The following polity proposal for SG upholds the primacy of local governance, the ecclesiastical unity of our churches, and extra-local leadership. The result is an ecclesiastical body with a polity that could be described as a modified form of Presbyterianism. In Presbyterianism, elders from multiple congregations jointly exercise a degree of shared governance in certain matters pertaining to those several congregations and their officers. In the proposed polity, these areas of shared governance are limited in order to respect the primacy of local governance in each church. This also recognizes that partnership among SG churches should find primary expression not through governmental functions, but through a common confession of faith, shared values, relationships, and a commitment to a common mission. The proposed polity differs from historic Presbyterianism in at least three important respects. First, historic Presbyterianism affirms, while the SG Polity Proposal denies, a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders. Second, in historic Presbyterianism, congregations vote to call their elders. In the SG Polity Proposal, the decision to call an elder to a local church lies ultimately with the existing eldership of that local church (although this decision should always involve extensive consultation with the congregation, as described in the Book of Church Order). Third, the SG Polity Proposal maintains a role for leaders set apart to serve churches in their broader mission, and a Leadership Team of this nature is not a part of historic Presbyterianism. This Book of Church Order is not to be understood as conveying the essential aspects of Sovereign Grace churches but, instead, key aspects related to the governing of our churches. As such, this document is not best suited to understand our core values and our function. We would need a companion confession of faith along with many pages describing our biblical values along with ample explanation and illustration to help someone get a sense of who we are. As is common to many church organizations polity documents, this BCO is aimed at describing merely our polity and thus can come across as cold and terse at points. We apologize for our limitations in communication here and want to clarify the nature of this document at the outset so that any reader would realize the incomplete nature of any polity document. We anticipate a future companion document that would encompass a common confession of faith along with biblical arguments complemented by ample illustrations and explanations. For now, we must suffice with this polity outline. 1. Local Church Polity The primary governance structure in a local church is its eldership. The elders of each local church have the responsibility to govern its affairs under the lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. Pastors are qualified men who are called and gifted by God to feed, oversee, care for, and protect the flock entrusted to them. They are to be examples to the church and to lead with proper fear, humility, and a heart of service. In SG, appointing a man to the office of elder is a collaborative effort between the elders, members of a local church, and the Regional Assembly of Elders and its representative Ordination Committee. Elders are accountable first and foremost to Christ, but also to the local eldership, the congregation they lead, and the Regional Assembly of Elders. Each church should strive to have a plurality of elders where possible. Although elders have different gifts and roles, all must meet the same qualifications because all occupy the same office, which fundamentally
111

involves ruling and teaching. Elders may be fully supported financially, or they may be bi-vocational depending on the financial resources of the church and the will of its elders. In addition to the office of pastor/elder/overseer, the office of deacon serves an important role in the church but is not a governing office. Church members do not have an inferior status to elders, but are equal in standing before Christ. Under the new covenant, all Christians are indwelt by the Spirit of God, all are children of God, and all belong to the royal priesthood. Believers are called to a shared life together involving fellowship, discipline, and care. Although congregants do not democratically govern the church, each member contributes greatly to the health or demise of the church. A healthy congregation experiences joyful solidarity with its elders, submits to the rule and oversight of its elders, tests the leadership of its elders by the Word of God, and is equipped for active ministry by the elders. However, the idea that human authority in the church ultimately rests with the will of the majority of congregants is a more democratic ideal than a biblical one. Throughout salvation-history, Gods normal pattern has been to exercise his rule through appointed leaders. Popular sovereignty is conspicuous by its absence. The biblical texts which have historically been used to argue for democratic church government (Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 5) do not clearly establish such an approach.

Matthew 18
Matthew 18 as a whole deals with relationships within the community of Gods people. The issue of church discipline necessarily involves the action and participation of the church community, but this says nothing about the role of the churchs leaders in the process. Indeed, if the text had specified the role of elders, it would have sounded suspiciously anachronistic at this point in Jesus ministry. The likely frame of reference for Jesus listeners would have been the Jewish culture where such matters were handled by the elders of the city or synagogue. The mention of two and two or three at least suggests the involvement of leaders/judges in resolving the offense. However Matthew 18 is interpreted, we are obligated to account for the NTs teaching on specific church officers and their authority in governing the affairs of the church. 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 the 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.29

1 Corinthians 5
Similar principles apply as mentioned above on Matthew 18. While the text emphasizes the congregations necessary role in church discipline, it simply does not specify what role the churchs leadership should play. Pauls address of the entire church is particularly relevant given the churchs apathy and permissiveness toward the scandalous behavior in view. We must keep in mind the ad hoc nature of this epistle. Pauls focus on the entire congregation throughout this letter likely reflects a conflict between Paul and the entire church that the letter is intended to address. Paul addresses this entire letter to the congregation. If we deny elders a leadership role in church discipline on the basis of 1 Corinthians 5, then we must also deny them a role in the preaching of the gospel (ch. 3), the Lords Supper (ch. 11), the churchs gatherings in general (chs. 12-14), etc.

John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, abr. and ed. John Huxtable (London: Camelot, 1947), 113. Cited by L. Roy Taylor in Who Runs the Church?, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 166.

29

112

2. Extra-local Polity Many of the biblical expressions of partnership among churches will be best accomplished through decentralization. This places interdependent ministry, care, and accountability into the hands of each region and its elders. Strong regions are vital to the future of SG. Therefore, regions will have their own Regional Assembly of Elders consisting of all ordained elders in the region. The maximum number of voting elders from each church is limited to five. Each Regional Assembly of Elders will appoint various committees and a regional leader to serve their region with a delegated authority that is carefully prescribed. Numerous functions that have been more centralized in the past will now be handled largely on a regional level: approving elder candidates for ordination, adjudication by a regional Judicial Review Committee, the removal or censure of churches within the region when needed, and planting new churches. In matters pertaining to ordination, doctrinal fidelity, and the moral integrity of elders, the elderships of a region serve and oversee the churches within their region. The Regional Leader will coordinate care within the region and represent the Regional Assembly of Elders beyond the region. A Regional Leader is an elder in a local SG church with outstanding gifting, ability, and experience. We believe that the recognition and deployment of such a leader within the Region for the purposes of caring for our pastors and churches, for giving advice and counsel to local elderships, and for leading our Regional Assembly of Elders meetings is wise and necessary. If the mission of the church is to move forward under the leadership of gifted men, then some local elders must be released, to some extent, to serve beyond their local church. The NT is replete with such men, and the same has been true throughout church history. They are a gift of God to the church. The Council of Elders is a representative body made up of one ordained elder from each church in SG. Churches with adult memberships of over 500 are granted an additional representative elder. The CE will meet to approve changes to the Statement of Faith and the Book of Church Order, to confirm the removal of a church from SG, to elect members of the Executive Committee, to confirm the Executive Director, to approve the annual budget, and for various other reasons included in the Book of Church Order. There are also biblical expressions of partnership among local churches that are best accomplished in a more centralized manner and with the leadership of appropriately gifted men.30 Therefore, an Executive Committee and Leadership Team will play a critical role in extra-local leadership in the central aspects of SG in order to facilitate the pursuit of our mission together. Members of the Executive Committee and Leadership Team occupy no higher office than that of an elder. They have no special authority in the churches beyond the limited authority that has been delegated to them by the elders of SG to carry out their specified functions. SGM, therefore, is an instrument of the SG churches that helps to promote shared values and a common mission. As representatives of SG elders, the Executive Committee is responsible to maintain the values of SG, to appoint and assess men on the Leadership Team, and to approve the annual budget of SGM. After the annual budget has been approved by the Executive Committee, it must then be affirmed by the Counsel of Elders. Members of the Executive Committee are elected by the Regional Leaders, who act
30

Representative polities carry the twin weaknesses of administrative complexity and a flattening of responsibility (e.g., a lack of specialization), the effects of which can squelch mission effectiveness. In reflecting on the PCAs history, L. Roy Taylor, the Stated Clerk of the PCA, observed the following: After thirty-seven years of operations, in retrospect some founding fathers as well as younger men realize that in the formulation and development of our polity. [sic] There are some instances in which the pendulum effect may have been too strong as we reacted against the excesses of our former denominational connection. Our system was designed in several respects more to prevent the accumulation of influence than to accomplish mission effectively. L. Roy Taylor, The Uniqueness of PCA Polity, http://www.pcaac.org/The%20Uniqueness%20of%20PCA%20Polity%20121509.pdf

113

representatively on behalf of all SG churches. Each candidate for the Executive Committee must also be affirmed by a majority of the CE. The members of the Leadership Team are gifted men appointed to serve the church in its broader mission. They do so by focusing on specialized tasks such as leadership in mission, pastoral training, and administrative functions. As with Regional Leaders, we believe that the recognition and deployment of such men not only honors Scriptural teaching and precedent and church history but is also vital for the fulfillment of the churchs broader mission. We also believe that a polity that does not recognize this category of spiritual gifting and does not deploy such men risks stifling an important aspect of leadership and becoming polity heavy to the detriment of mission. A Nominating Committee, consisting of 5 Regional Leaders, 1 Executive Committee member, and 1 Leadership Team member, will be established to put men forward to serve in key functions in SG. The Nominating Committee will nominate one man from each Regional Judicial Review Committee to serve on the SG Court of Appeal, which is the highest court in SG. The Nominating Committee will also nominate qualified SG elders to serve four-year terms on the Executive Committee. All SG Churches will sign a Partnership Agreement stating their agreement with the SG Statement of Faith and the practices and procedures in the SG Book of Church Order. For the first 2 years, giving financially to SG is encouraged but not required. After that, 5% will be mandated (unless, under financial duress, they are granted a temporary waiver by their Regional Assembly of Elders), but this is subject to the amendment of the Counsel of Elders. 3. The Rules of Discipline Church discipline promotes the glory of Christ, the purity of the church, and the restoration of the sinner. Agreeing upon rules of discipline for all SG churches will create an appropriate degree of uniformity in practice, help to avoid partiality and inconsistency in discipline and provide accountability for all members, pastors, and SG leaders. Local elders are responsible to faithfully carry out the rules of discipline for members under their care. A disciplined member may appeal the elders decision to their regional Judicial Review Committee. All SG churches will agree to a common grievance policy (in the BCO) for bringing charges against an elder. The evaluation and discipline procedures of pastors will apply equally to members of the Executive Committee and Leadership Team. The Regional Judicial Review Committee has responsibility for the public censure and removal of a church should it be necessary. SG has no right to a churchs assets. An elder who believes his case was mishandled by a Judicial Review Committee has the right to appeal to the SG Court of Appeal, and the SG Court of Appeal may review Judicial Review Committee rulings at their discretion.

114

Appendix VIII: Comparison: the old SGM Boards and the new SG Executive Committee
One of the notable changes in the Revision is the name change from Governing Board to Executive Committee. The reason for this name change is that there is a significant change in structure and responsibility from past boards (particularly the boards in place prior to the installation of the Interim Board in 2011) and the new Executive Committee. During the feedback period, we found when talking to SG elders that there was good deal of confusion about this Committee. We thought it might be helpful by way of explanation to give a compare and contrast between these past boards and the Executive Committee, so that is what you will find below. It should also be noted that this comparison is not intended to be a criticism of these past boards. The Apostolic Team of SGM served us very well for many years. It was this team that recognized the need for changes and initiated the board and polity reforms whose fruit is this present Revised Polity Proposal. However, as with the entire Polity Proposal, there are significant differences between the old and new. Old Board of Directors 1. Consisted primarily of the members of the Leadership Team. 2. Had primary responsibility for the governance of all of SGM. 3. Members were usually, but not always, employees of SGM. 4. Members were appointed and removed by a majority vote of the existing Board. 5. Had exclusive authority over all SGM finances. New Executive Committee 1. Consists of SG elders, none of whom are on the Leadership Team.31 2. Serves only as an oversight Committee for the Leadership Team as an extension of the Council of Elders. 3. None are employees of SGM. 4. Members are elected by the Council of Elders. 5. The Executive Committee still has responsibility for the budget along with the Director of Administration, but the budget now must also be approved by the Council of Elders. 6. The Executive Committee has no authority in the churches or Regions. Regional Leaders are now elected by the SG elders in their Region to whom they are accountable. 7. Statement of Faith can only be changed by the Council of Elders in conjunction with the Regional Assemblies of Elders. 8. Staggered four-year terms now apply to all Committee members. 9. Accountable to the Council of Elders, from which the Committee derives its authority, individually to the Regional Assemblies of Elders, and to the SG Court of Appeal where appropriate.

6. Appointed and oversaw Regional Leaders.

7. Had exclusive authority to change the Statement of Faith. 8. Had no term of office. 9. No formal, structured accountability to SG elders.

31

The Executive Director is a non-voting member of the Executive Committee.

115

116

Appendix IX: Letter of Intent

We, the eldership of ______________________________, affirm our intent to be a part of the Sovereign Grace Churches. By signing this letter we are also signaling our intention to sign the more formal Partnership Agreement provided that a full legal review satisfies any concerns we may have regarding legal liability. In the interim, we agree to fully participate according to our ability, to support the SG Statement of Faith and to abide by the rules of the SG Book of Church Order.

____________________________________________ (elder) ____________________________________________ (elder) __________________________________________ (elder) ____________________________________________ (elder) ____________________________________________ (elder) ____________________________________________ (elder) ____________________________________________ (elder) ____________________________________________ (elder) ____________________________________________ (elder) ____________________________________________ (elder)

___________________ (date) ___________________ (date) ___________________ (date) ___________________ (date) ___________________ (date) ___________________ (date) ___________________ (date) ___________________ (date) ___________________ (date) ___________________ (date)

117

118