I write as a Presbyterian, which means, among other things, that I believe the Scripture provides a framework for the church, including the oversight of elders in a “local” body. Is the body which Scripture describes a discreet congregation or several congregations in a larger community? I’m not sure, although the presbyterian structure enables oversight at both the truly local and the larger community levels. In any case, in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, the biblical writers outline an organizational order within which they expect believers to live together.

I certainly agree with you about the splintered nature of things in the American church, as well as the ineffectiveness of much of it (although it’s interesting to ask what your standards of effectiveness are). We in the American church need to do a much better job of teaching and leading. But that’s surely not a reason to ignore what the Bible does in fact say about elders and oversight and authority and discipline and the proper ordering of life within the congregation(s). The church as described in the Scripture remains God’s principal means for his purposes. How much better to reform and revive the church, in its biblical beauty and power, rather than opt for other organizational principles! I wonder if the poor appearance and ineffectiveness of the church are the results of ignoring and abandoning the Bible’s teaching, and, therefore, if the flight to other organizational principles will give merely the appearance of effectiveness for a time while in fact steepening the slide. (There are wonderful resources available to aid in this important enterprise of reform and revival: The Embers to Flame ministry, growing out of Harry Reeder’s ministry at Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, and the 9Marks ministry growing out of Mark Dever’s ministry at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.)

The PCA was born out of the need for biblical and missional fidelity, and was established, as well as those wise but fallible founders could do so, on the basis of what the Bible in fact teaches about the nature of the church. To equate the founding of the PCA and its ecclesiology with the parachurch movement is a remarkable leap: Emerson’s account gives no evidence that the loose and informal “networks” which the evangelical leaders he describes are established on the foundations of the authority of elders (e.g. 1 Timothy, Titus), sound biblical worship (e.g. 1 Corinthians), and the kind of congregational connectedness and care that is at the heart of the Scripture’s teaching (e.g. Acts 2). While some local churches and some parachurch organizations may give the impression of a false dichotomy, a dichotomy nevertheless exists in truth, given the Scripture’s instruction. And of course there is a place for parachurch organizations, with particular attention given to creating healthier connections to healthier churches so that all the parts of God’s work on earth would function according to his plan.

As to the selection of elders, I agree entirely with the need for higher standards – which once again leads me to presbyterian ecclesiology, according to which there are biblical standards and expectations which qualified men must meet.

At Covenant our aim is to provide an academically excellent education within the context of the theologically Reformed framework. Ecclesiologically, this means BOTH honoring the Scripture’s clear teaching about the nature and function and order of the church, and our biblical obligation to live under its authority and discipline, AND encouraging and challenging us all to grow churches that are alive in the Word and the gospel, that vibrantly engage community and world, and that faithfully and biblically serve the Lord’s gracious and redemptive purposes for his people and his creation.

First let me say thank you for what Covenant College is doing. I’m especially encouraged to see more of academia entering into this collaborative discussion forum we fondly call the blogosphere. I pray you’ll find success in leading yet others from your faculty to share their intellectual resources at the speed of Light.

[Btw, I learned of your blog as we featured a great Chalmers Center article on "Helping The Poor Without Hurting Them, Or Us". Great article.]

And thank you for addressing an essential issue here to be further discussed… Ecclesiology.

Having said that, let me quickly disclaim… I’m neither a pastor nor theologian, but simply an active reader of the Word… with more than a few years sitting under great PCA preaching/teaching.

Could we entice you to post further, on this topic… especially citing bible references for what constitutes the ‘local church’? Especially consider what we’re reading about in the New Testament… ie, the church at Antioch, Jerusalem, Philippi, Rome, (Indianapolis?) etc…. granularly down to the house-to-house level… with no mention of anything like we see here in the U.S. today… ie, ABC Baptist, XYZ Presbyterian and 123 Unitarian. And when the NT hints at any other division of the Church, it is as Paul writes strongly against such divisions.

Btw, in your article, you’ve noted that surely we should not simply go create a new community at every opportunity. Yet there’s a certain irony in the PCA’s very existence, after dividing away from another denomination.

In the article above, you’ve made your case from what some of us might call the stereotypical false-dichotomy between a ‘local church’ (meaning for instance, a PCA church variety) vs. the ‘parachurch’ (often those incited to start a team from various congregations to go do the work of the Church, due to a perceived lack of the ‘local church’ doing it). It brings to mind Jesus’ parable of the two sons… one who (only) talked the talk, and one who (reluctantly but eventually) walked the walk.

I think we’d all agree that we need for the church to be both biblically constructed and at the same time, optimally effective in its mission… the Whole Commission. Some of us might even suggest that the truly-LOCAL body of believers would be the appropriate grouping — not the mega-wannabee varieties we see prevalent today.

Currently, it seems that the ‘local church’ in the U.S. is (largely) neither effective nor well-constructed. Barna Research cites only 4% of American adults as holding a biblical worldview; thus it would be hard to make a convincing case for our collective effectiveness. Further, Dr. Lindsay’s colleague — Dr. Michael Emerson — reports that only 5% of Christian churches in the U.S. would meet the minimal definition of being ‘multicultural’ (which surely we’d agree the New Testament mandates, yes?).

And if you would, please speak to the selection of these ‘elders’ (and thus their ‘authority’)… if in fact, the fractured U.S. church model is not a biblically-representative case study. Considering all the purported ‘local churches’ in our cities, might we be appointing/ordaining way too many elders citywide? And if so, what ‘authority’ do they truly possess? I wonder aloud… What if biblical elders had to meet a higher selection standard city by city… something akin to truly being elders ‘respected at the city gate’?

Lastly, it might be instructive for us to understand what Covenant College is doing specifically to make inroads into resolving this poor appearance & effectiveness of the Church, city by city.

And how might we help?

Btw, we’re collecting some great links on the topic at ModelChurch.org — we’d love to add your insights.