The Doctrine and Administration of The Church Book Review

 Recently I read the book The Doctrine and Administration of the Church by Paul R. Jackson.  While I had never heard of this book previously, it was recommended to me as a standard text on the topic of church polity.  Therefore, I decided to read through the work and write my own review of the content of this work.

The Good

 This book was not horrible, but not great either.  This book met my overall expectations but did not exceed them.  I found the book to be very basic and not all too profound.  The book seemed kind of watered down on doctrine and I believe that the author could have spent more time developing his arguments.  The work seemed like a “hodgepodge” of many different topics but never really covered one topic well.  I also think the author did not do a great job of making a distinction between his own ideas and those which were drawn from Scripture.  Very often in the discussions the author gave lists of how things should or could be done in the church, and they were nothing more than his own ideas or opinions.  Other times the author did use Scripture to back his argument, but I even found his use of Scripture lacking.  He did not seem to take a lot of time to deal with all of the key texts on the topics he discussed, and I found myself wondering as to why certain texts were not brought into the discussion.  Still, some aspects of the book were explained in a decently good manner.

For instance, I did like a lot of what was said regarding the role of the elected officers of the church.  The author noted that pastors are leaders and exercise leadership in the church (43).  I believe the author gave some very helpful insight when he noted how to deal with issues one might have with a pastor.  The author notes that “pastors do not always have personalities pleasing to us, nor do they do their work in ways that we prefer.  However, we are admonished to ‘esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake’ (I Thess. 5:13).  The office and work of God’s servants command our esteem, even when personal fancies are not favorable” (47).  The author further notes that when one has legitimate issues with a pastor he or she should go to him, and that “if we are carnal and cannot go to him, then we have no right to condemn him” (47)!  Such instruction is needed in churches today!  The author also had some good yet brief items to note about deacons, stating that deacons are not “the board,” rather they are servants who support the ministry of the pastor.  Beyond these items, the author did have various practical tips and advice to offer regarding some of the practical ways in which churches are structured.

The Bad

I found several items in this book that fall into the “bad” category.  As I write this review, I pastor a Regular Baptist Church.  I have found that I am comfortable in these circles and have found great benefit to partnering with an association of like-minded churches.  Upon reading this book, however, which is published by Regular Baptist Press, I have some grave concerns.  I am dismayed that this book comes from our association publishers and have some great concerns about a few items mentioned in this book.

First, I take issues with how the author finds the church in the Old Testament.  I suppose what he is referring to could be called a form of typology, or what I might call “illusionism”, though he never uses these terms.  At the beginning of the book, the author takes time to look back to the Old Testament to demonstrate how the church was always in God’s plan.  The way the author deals with the text, however, is incredibly problematic.  He references Genesis 2:21-24 as a foreshadowing of the church.  The author notes that just like Eve was taken from Adam as “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh,” so the church is described in Ephesians 5:30 as “members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.”  The problem with this reference, however, is that the text never gives us any of these parallels.  The author further mentions Genesis 24, where Abraham sent his servant to find a wife for Isaac.  The author notes “many interesting details of this delightful narrative suggest the blessed ministry of the Spirit, Who has come into the world to secure the Bride for Christ (17).”  The author works through this narrative to find parallels between the servant of Abraham pursuing Rebekah and Christ pursuing His church.  This reminds me of how I have heard some of the same arguments used here from this passage to describe how the bus ministry is in the Bible!  The obvious logical fallacy in how the book approaches this text is that Jesus pursues His own bride and does not send a servant to pursue her for Him!  Beyond that, this is a terrible way to treat the text of Scripture.  We could call it an allegorical method rather than a grammatical-historical, and the danger here is that it can make the Word of God mean almost anything the interpreter wants it to mean (like the bus ministry in the Old Testament).  If pursuing a bride is an illusion of Christ pursuing the church, why is Genesis 24 the only illustration?  What about Jacob’s work in order to marry Rachel—could there not be things we can learn there about Christ’s pursuing His bride?  Or Moses and his marriage to Zipporah—surely, we can learn something of Christ’s pursuit of His own bride from that story!  I think the point is clear: when we treat the text of Scripture in this way, we leave the work of the Holy Spirit behind and we make ourselves the illuminators of the text of Scripture.  This is a dangerous place to be!

I would point out one further concern with this method: the author adopts a non-dispensational hermeneutic.  This is concerning because Regular Baptists are by and large dispensational in their approach to the Scriptures.  For instance, the author notes “no revelation of the church is given in the Old Testament.  However, now that it has been revealed in the New Testament, it becomes evident by the word pictures of the Old Testament that this new creation was in the mind of God . . . (16).”  This is not a dispensational hermeneutic, rather it is the same line of reasoning used in Covenant Theology.  The main issue here is one of the progress of revelation.  As dispensationalists, we believe that the latter revelation adds to the previous revelation, but does not change or re-interpret previous Scripture.  This is why we can say that God still has a plan for ethnic Israel as taught in the Old Testament, yet God also has His New Testament people, the church.  The main difference with Covenant Theology is that covenant theologians treat the progress of revelation as developing.  Newer revelation redefines or reinterprets the older revelation, which is why they can teach that God’s ultimate plan was revealed in the New Testament to replace God’s Old Testament people with the church.  I would also note that if this is your hermeneutical methodology, then it makes perfect sense to “unhitch” oneself from the Old Testament as one prominent pastor was interpreted to say!  The issue here is one of how an interpreter approaches revelation—does new revelation outweigh and reinterpret older, or does it merely add to it?  I argue, based on II Timothy 3:16-17 and other texts, that all Scripture holds equal weight.  It is all the inspired word of God; therefore, the progress of revelation must be to add to older revelation, but newer revelation CANNOT redefine or reinterpret that which was written previously.  This connects with the historical-grammatical methodology, which when performing interpretation seeks to determine the mind of the author.  We ask, “Was this what the original writer intended to convey to his original audience?”  In the illustrations given in this book of pictures of the church in the Old Testament, we must firmly conclude that no, the church was not in the mind of the author!  Nor did a New Testament writer look back and use these episodes as illustrations of the church.  Therefore, we must conclude that these interpretations are not divinely inspired in the text, and we learn the lesson that interpreters must be extremely careful when trying to find New Testament teachings pictured in the Old Testament.

The Ugly

The “ugly” portion of this book falls in the description of church government.  Arguably the aforementioned issues could fall under this category as well.  The reason I determined this to be even more dangerous than the aforementioned issues is that in making the arguments against centralized church government, the author does not even bother to use Scriptural arguments.  Rather, the author seeks to argue for congregational church government and limitations on pastoral authority from a logical perspective.  He simply opens this section by noting that both Scripture and history teach of the dangers of a centralized church government, but he never shows biblical proof of this (34).  I would be interested in seeing his proof!  The crux of his argument comes in the third paragraph: “denominations that vested in a few men the power to direct and determine the actions and policies, and to make the decisions, were more vulnerable by satanic attack.  By capturing the leadership, the entire denomination became corrupted.  Greater speed and efficiency may be acquired by concentrating authority, providing that those with the power are both capable and honest.  But the danger is too great because of the greed and selfishness of the human heart (34).”  The first problem I have with the statements made here is that though the author reference Scriptural proof for his assertions, he never gives it.  His argument is mainly one of logic, emphasizing Satan’s attack on leaders, the (unstated) dangers of centralized government, and the assertion that a centralized church government is more vulnerable to Satanic attack, which sounds great but is impossible to quantify.  I suppose a further issue here is that the author uses the term “centralized authority” but never defines what is meant by this term.  He concludes his discussion here by saying “the danger is too great because of the greed and selfishness of the human heart (34).”  All of this is a logical argument, and the danger here is that the author is conditioning readers to have a mistrust of leadership in the church by using logical arguments and not Biblical ones. Though the writer alludes to Scriptures, none whatsoever are cited to prove what he is asserting at this part in the discussion.  I think we have several problems here.

First, we need to remember that God’s ways are not man’s ways.  Ways of doing ministry may not always make sense to the human perspective or fit within the secular model and corporate world, but we are still accountable to follow what God says; God’s way always works!  This is the case when it comes to church government.  We could easily argue against centralized leadership because of Satanic attacks or too great a danger, until we realize that at least to a certain degree, God does centralize a church’s government!  I have heard it said and agree with the statement that the congregation is the “final authority” or “last court of appeal”, but God also specifically designates pastors as the spiritual leaders of the congregation.  I Timothy 5:17 ascribes double honor to pastors who “rule well.”  In this text, pastors are told to rule.  The congregation is never told to rule; not a single verse in Scripture explicitly tells the congregation to rule, though we do see some semblance of ruling by illustration and shall talk about that later.  In Hebrews 13:17, church members are told to obey and submit themselves to the spiritual authority of their pastors because pastors are “soul watchers.”  I Peter 5:2 describes pastors as shepherds who have oversight over the flock of God.  Clearly, God has a certain structure in the church that is at least somewhat centralized.  I am not saying that the pastor is to be a dictator who does what he wants and always gets his way, but what I am saying is that only pastors are told to rule and express oversight in the church, and church members are told to submit to a pastor’s leadership.

The chapter on church government also seems to overlook the dangers of congregationalism, and yes, dangers do exist!  One could hear the logical argument of the author—that individuals involved in a centralized government are more vulnerable to the deception of Satan until you spend some time looking at the Scriptural examples.  My first thought is to ask the question—“how did that work for Corinth?”  The Corinthian church is a clear example where the majority ruling did not work out well.  In fact, never do we ever hear about the pastor in Corinth; everything was written to the church as a whole.  Here we have a clear illustration of how the majority was not fulfilling the desire of the Chief Shepherd.  These illustrations can be repeated in remembering that most of Paul’s epistles were written to churches, and many of them deal with the struggles in the local church.  Revelation 2 describes 7 churches that all had various issues in the entire body, and some of them were very severe.  Even going back into the Old Testament, we have examples of a large group of people who were “God’s people” yet over and over again they chose their own way instead of God’s way.  We see very clearly in many, many cases how that God sent one individual to call God’s people to repentance—one person speaking for the truths of God.  We need to remember that there is a difference between “majority rule” and “majority right”.  Just because the majority chooses one position or decision does not mean they are automatically right; in many cases, they are not!  I believe that is why we have pastors as leaders because people without a leader will often choose their own desires instead of God’s.  This is why Ephesians describes pastors as gifts to the congregation—they are given to enable and equip God’s people to choose rightly.  I have heard it said that “God moves through the decision of His people.”  While this is possible and does happen when God’s people are living Godly lives in tune with His Spirit, it is also just as feasible to say that the decision of God’s people may not be the movement of God; it could be the work of disobedience, as we see displayed all throughout the Scriptures.  I like to describe it this way: God moves through the decision of His people as guided by wise and godly leadership.  The two ought never to exist apart!        

The final issue I mention with how this book describes church government is the illustration of Scripture.  I alluded to this earlier and now will return to it.  Nowhere in Scripture is the congregation told to lead.  We have clear teaching that pastors are to lead, even rule well, and that the congregation is to follow their pastor’s leadership and authority.  But nowhere is the congregation expressly told to lead.  What we do have are inferences, which though they are important, are not on the same level as the clear teaching and descriptions regarding pastoral leadership.  But even the inferences in Scripture are limited.  If we had to tabulate all the instances of congregational government in the Bible, we have a very different picture than most Congregationalists usually acknowledge.  What we see is that the “power” of the congregation only extends to a few situations: matters of doctrine, calling and dismissing/discipline of members, and selection of Biblically qualified leaders.  These are the only areas we see in Scripture where the congregation expresses authority.  In all other matters, Scripture is silent when it comes to the authority of the congregation; every other area is met with the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the pastor’s responsibility to shepherd and lead the flock.  Now I am a congregationalist, so how does this fit with congregational government?  The question we encounter here is this: what constitutes a matter of governance?  In this regard, I think we need to stick to what we find in Scripture.  Items such as matters of doctrine, calling and dismissing members, issues of mediation and church discipline, and the election of qualified leaders all fall under the governing power of the congregation as the final authority in such matters.  But Scripture displays no more than those as examples of congregational authority.  If God intended congregations to express authority beyond these matters, God had the whole revelation of His Word to demonstrate this to us, but we are left without further evidence of congregational authority in other matters.  So, when it comes to pastors, a church calls its own pastors—that is an expression of their authority.  But when a church calls a man, they are calling a man to lead.  Along with the expression of the congregation’s authority to call a pastor is a willing submission or delegation of authority to the pastor to come be the spiritual leader of the church.  As such, to say that a Biblical church is “congregationally governed” is not enough.  A church may be congregationally governed, but it should also be pastor-led.  Thus, congregational government and pastoral leadership work in tandem, not against each other, and when God’s design for the church is followed, churches are able to move forward in the work God calls them to do.         

I would give one further note in this regard: Scripture does indeed recognize the temptations of Satan for men in leadership.  But nowhere in the Scriptures are churches instructed to limit a pastor’s authority or take power away from him because he might use it inappropriately.  Instead, Scripture instructs men in ministry to check themselves.  James 3:1 cautions against many being teachers because of the greater judgment associated with such responsibility.  I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 give very high qualifications which pastors and churches are to use as a standard for ministry leaders.  I Peter 5:2-3 gives pastors cautions against lording their authority over the flock.  I Timothy 5:22 cautions churches against hastily laying hands on a man as an elder.  These are the instructions we are given when faced with the temptations of a leader in ministry.  This is God’s way, and God’s way works!  Though churches are to expect that their pastors meet the qualifications in Scripture, it is both unhealthy and unbiblical for churches to live in fear and skepticism towards their church leaders and seek to limit their authority simply because they might take advantage of it or make a decision that a church member may not like.  I have contested for a while that too many times in church ministry we make “rules” to protect us from the potential for sin when God just wants us to walk uprightly and not sin, or take care of it when we do.  Nowhere in Scripture is the church told to put rules of protection on their pastor because he might abuse his authority, though we can all agree that some accountabilities are important.  However, Scripture is full of instructions for how to take care of sin when it does happen, and the right type of leader will take care of his “stuff” when he sins.  We need to follow God’s way!

Final Thoughts

Putting all of this together, I wish I could speak more highly of this work, but I am left lacking following my read.  The author spends so brief a time dealing with much of the items he addressed that I was left wondering if it was truly worth the effort.  The author tried to pack a broad range of topics into one short work, and I think this was to the exclusion of discussion that could and perhaps should be had on some of the items addressed.  I found very little exegetical evaluation of Scripture as I would have expected from this book, and I wish the author would have dug deeper into the text of Scripture and not focused on as much of the practical ideas he had for structuring a church.  All in all, this was not a bad read, but I am not likely to recommend the book to others and think better books on these topics are more readily available.