|
 Practically
all church historians relate the development of the Papal system
(Universal Bishop) with a much earlier "metropolitan
system" and the diocesan concept of church government.
Pragmatically, it is an enlarged concept of structure
that demands an enlarged government harness to fit the team.
If no effort was made to work churches as a "team,"
then there would be no need for an oversight larger than that of
the local church. This lesson is badly needed today.
But
there is something back of the enlarged structure to which
little attention has been given. WHY would early churches
(beginning of second century) enlarge structure or oversight?
Was it pride or hunger for power, as is often suggested? Perhaps
we have allowed a certain prejudice to color our thinking. It is
highly probable that early Christians had as much or more zeal
for doing the work of the Lord as brethren today, and thought
they could "do more" with an enlarged organization.
And, while we are granting good intentions, let us ask ourselves
on what basis any one could justify that which changed the
organizational structure and government of the church? Could
they have had a concept of the nature of church
that encouraged it?
I
know that today's organizers justify their actions on a
misconception of the nature of the universal church. Bro. Woods,
in his debate with bro. Cogdill, argued: l. The Great Commission
obligated "the church" to go to the whole world; 2.
Without cooperation (collective action) it is impossible for
this commission to be carried out; 3. Since the apostolic
"church" did preach to every
| |
creature (Col. 1:23) it
follows that there was cooperative effort (again, he uses
"cooperative" in the limited sense of collective
action, rft). (See Cogdill-Woods Debate, pp. 195-196, 233, 236).
There is no need to re-argue this debate, nor do I attempt it.
But I want you to note the concept of "church" here.
It treats all saints (the universal body) as some sort of
functional unit; and slides into the concept of a universal body
of churches. THIS "church" must go into the
world. To say it is the "church" distributively, as
each member works; or even as each congregation carries out its
independent obligations, would destroy bro. Woods' argument.
Clearly, he conceives of "the church" as some sort of
universal teaching society as a universal functional
institution.
This
is the "Catholic" concept of "church"
though I certainly do not charge Woods with the whole
consequence. They say the church is "the society founded
by Our Lord Jesus Christ;" "...it is to the Church
that Christ has committed those means of grace through which the
gifts he earned for men are communicated to them. The church
alone dispenses the sacraments. It alone makes known the light
of revealed truth." (Catholic Encyclopedia, V.III, p.744,
752.) The society must "administer" grace,
sanction the teaching, and must therefore be perpetuated as a
viable institution so that it may perform these functions.
This
concept caused Augustine to say, "I should not believe the
Gospel (continued next page)
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
