top of page
Reformed Classicalist

Witherow's Question

RTS Papers / Church Polity / Winter 2018

Reflections on Thomas Witherow's The Apostolic Church: Which is It?


An opening division is made between Prelacy and Independency at the extremes, and Presbytery in the middle. At one extreme is a centralized hierarchy and at the other is no external governing authority beyond the local congregation. Although most are indifferent to the question, Witherow is persuasive that the Scriptures have spoken to it and therefore we ought to study it and come to a conclusion.

A first error comes in supposing that the designations “universal church” and “local church” use the word church in a fundamentally different manner. A second error comes from supposing that the New Testament has little to say about it.

There are many false standards, but only the Word of God gives the true standards; and as a matter of logic, “If government existed, some form of government must have been adopted” [17].


He lists six apostolic principles: 1. that the offices are patterned after Christ; 2. that “elder” and “bishop” are synonyms; 3. that there was a plurality of elders in all the churches; 4. that ordination was an act of this plurality of elders; 5. the privilege of appeal to the assembly of elders, and the right of government exercised by them in their corporate character; and 6. the ultimate headship of Christ. These, he says, embody the whole of church government: “each rising in importance above that which precedes it” [39].


Four offices are mentioned in the New Testament: apostles and evangelists helping to found the church; pastors and deacons being perpetual throughout the church age.

Withrow’s exegesis of Acts 1:13-26, 6:5-6, and 14:23 seems forced. In the first case lots were cast, in the second the appointment regarded deacons only, and in the third it does not seem the case that “the true meaning of the word in the original is ‘to elect by a show of hands’” [24].


This is especially inconvenient rationale when the author comes around to criticizing the Independents. Although his remarks about the absence of a plurality and the relaxation of ordination standards are admirable, the same cannot be said for regrets over their lack of authority: “The congregation, being destitute of a plurality of elders, his ordination can only come from the people, who have no Scriptural right to confer it, or from the neighboring pastor” [43].


As the argument progresses Withrow comes to the climax of the case for a general presbytery. Acts 15 and 16 demonstrate such a necessity. I do not disagree with his argument. However it must be asked what happens in the case of a general presbytery—or by the implication of the rules of the denomination—when the heretic is exonerated and the faithful are sent back home as troublemakers? If this seems far-fetched, the recent memory of Peter Leithart and the northwest PCA may be instructive.


There is, on the other hand, a strong argument made by Witherow on behalf of the man who has been mistreated and who would appeal to a general presbytery. Independency deprives him of this and potentially insulates tyranny at the local level [44]. Point granted. Why not then a “federal” system, for lack of a better phrase, in which congregational responsibility (cf. Mat. 18:15-20, Gal. 1:8-9, 1 Cor. 5:2-5, 12-13, 2 Cor. 2:6) and appeal to the wisdom of the general presbytery operate together with checks and balances? Presbyterians generally argue that this is exactly what they have, and in fairness, Guy Waters makes a much clearer and up to date case for it.


The rest regards his application of the doctrine to the three main competitors: Prelacy (Romanism), Independency (Modern Evangelicalism), and Presbyterianism. He is careful to say that he makes no judgment regarding the existence of the church at its lower points, but rather its health. The biblical doctrine is the Presbyterian form of polity, and the church will be all the more healthy in this recognition.


0 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page