Biblical Moorings
The overarching principles that appear to emerge with reference to patterns of authority in the early church may be summarized in the following: a) The church should be responsive to the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit; b) the church should be faithful to the gospel and the apostolic tradition; this faithfulness is expected of the whole church and its leaders; c) the church should commit itself to service and edification for its own growth and maturity. All spiritual gifts and all functions of and persons in leadership are responsible to this standard; d) the church and its leaders should seek to present the church to the world with its honor, integrity, and witness intact; e) the church should respect and support its leaders; and f) the leaders of the church are responsible to serve the church in a collegial and faithful manner.
The New Testament provides no warrants that guarantee leaders lifelong status, privilege, or immunity from evaluation and the call to responsibility.
David M. Scholer, “Patterns of Authority in the Early Church”
From Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnson, editors (1993), pp. 60,61.
The Twelve, in fact, were never a model or pattern for leadership or governance in the church, apart from the very early days of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 1-12). In this context, Peter was the initial leader of the community, hinted at already in the gospel tradition (e.g., Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 22:31-34). However, it should be noted that although Matthias replaces Judas among the Twelve (Acts 1: 15-26), James is not replaced when he is killed (Acts 12:1-11). Further, Peter's leadership is very early replaced by that of James (known as "the just"), the brother of Jesus (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18), presumably because Peter's contact with the Gentile Cornelius rendered him no longer viable as a leader in the Jerusalem church.
Not only did Jesus institute no offices for the church, he apparently said very little about the church, according to the gospel traditions. Matthew records two speeches of Jesus in which the church is mentioned. The first is the account of Peter's confession and designation as a leader in the church (Matthew 16:13-20//Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21). Here Peter's prominence as an early (first) leader in the church is probably indicated, but the passage is certainly no warrant for a continuing Petrine office of authority and leadership.
The second passage that mentions the church is one that concerns community discipline (Matthew 18:15-20). What is so important here is that the disciplinary process is not assigned to particular authoritative leaders or office holders, but to the entire community of believers. This appears to have been carried out consistently in the early church, as three Pauline texts clearly indicate 1 Corinthians 5; 14:37-38; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15).
David M. Scholer, “Patterns of Authority in the Early Church”
From Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), pp. 47,48.
Nowhere in the NT are gifts restricted to a particular gender. Rather, Paul emphasizes that in the church distinctions on the basis of gender are not to be made–“in Christ there is not male and female” (Galatians 3:28). In fact, where Paul singles out coworkers for their leadership labors, women and men are mentioned in equal numbers, the same language of leadership is used of both, and the same submission is required-submission based on a job well done not because of gender or office.
Likewise men and women are seen to function in the same roles in the NT. Both are commended for their faithfulness as stewards, apostles, and evangelists; both are singled out as prophets, teachers, and deacons. Examination of the two Pauline passages that appear to deny certain roles to women disclosed that in each case Paul is dealing with concrete situations where the newly gained freedom of “not male and female” has been taken to extremes. In Corinth, the excitement of the learning process prompts women to ask questions that disrupt the flow of worship; in Ephesus, it tempts women to not merely learn alongside but dictate to and domineer over the men that have traditionally held positions of authority.
It is well worth noting from our study that today's language of leadership moves more in the realm of the authoritarian-hierarchical language of secular society than in the sphere of the pastoral-egalitarian language of the redeemed community. The language of “to govern” and “to bear rule” commonly heard in Covenant circles, and the top down, hierarchical style of management frequently found in evangelicalism today are at odds with the bottom up, charismatic organization, and the care-giving, nurturing leadership models and language that we find throughout the NT. There are no distinctions of roles between men and women in the early church; nor can there be in a charismatically based understanding of the church. The concept of the local church in the NT is an organic, not a hierarchical one. As Paul says, it is only “as each one does his/ her part that the whole body joined and held together through every supporting ligament grows and builds itself up in love” (Ephesians 4:16).
The biblical record stands as a challenge to the church in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to approach the task of leadership in such a way that Christian men and women are given every possible avenue and means to exercise their gifts in a context of spiritual nurture and support. Only so can we live as truly responsible citizens of God's kingdom.
Linda L. Belleville (1950- ), “Male and Female Leadership Roles in the New Testament. From Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson and Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), pp.38,39.
Early Struggles
For several decades ideas of religious freedom of the most radical form were zealously, even fanatically advocated by a "free church" group of editors, preachers, and laymen. Leaders of this vocal minority were such capable writers as John Martenson, editor of the independent paper Chicago-Bladet, organized 1877; Prof. J. G. Princell, who in an emergency had taken the presidency of Ansgar College; and the influential missionary sponsor, Fredrik Franson.
They insisted that the early primitive Christian church should be the model for the church at all times, and advocated the absolute independence and unhampered freedom of the local church. Because synods and missionary organizations were not found in the New Testament all such denominational institutions were condemned. Some of their disciples went still further. They vigorously fought the idea of organized congregations, church membership, church boards, church records, and church order. They especially opposed the organization of congregations into societies and denominations to carry on missionary work.
Through all this storm in which he was often the target, the Rev. C. A. Björk kept his bearings, and without malice or hasty, unwise actions, guided the development first of the Mission Synod, and later the organization of the Mission Covenant in 1885. At times the controversy reached tornado proportions. Wherever congregations were organized, and they sprang up by the dozens, the battle between the “free” and the “organization” ideas was fought. Often one small community would experience a spiritual awakening, followed by the organization of first a Mission church founded on Covenant principles, and then shortly afterwards dissatisfied individuals would band themselves together into a “free” church-only-to later witness the tragedy of the slow death of the latter, sometimes the former, occasionally both, due to the life and death struggle which ensued through the years. All this cost the young, vigorous religious work some of its most golden opportunities.
The pathetic disorder and trend toward disintegration and ultimate chaos made some sort of union imperative. Both the Mission and Ansgar Synods, as well as many unaffiliated churches and missionary societies, increasingly sponsored the idea, while Chicago-Bladet and the “free” advocates fought it. The Ansgar Synod early took the initiative by proposing union at Moingona, in 1878, and by disbanding at Moline, in 1885. The actual organization, welding the many interested parties into a covenant for co-operative missionary action, resulted, however, from the historic invitation to meet in the Tabernacle church, Chicago, February 18-25, 1885. The signatures were those of the Rev. F. M. Johnson, pastor of the host church, and the Rev. C. A. Björk, president of the Mission Synod. This letter attracted considerable interest and crystallized opinion into two major camps. The free element firmly opposed all organization of churches. They preferred a proposition by Prof. J. G. Princell of an organization of individuals: pastors, laymen, and delegates from churches. A larger, and equally determined group, led by F. M. Johnson and C. A. Björk, championed the practical union of churches as the only depend. able solution of the problem....
The Covenant had to fight vigorously for its existence for at least the first five years. Incensed by the fact that an organization had been successful, Chicago-Bladet continued its agitation against the Covenant. This opposition largely explains the slow growth of the first half decade. Yet the growth was considerable. The number of affiliated churches grew from forty-seven in 1885 to seventy-nine in 1890, and to one hundred and twenty-eight in 1895....
C. E. Backstrom (1901-1984), “Carl August Björk.” From C. E. Backstrom, E. Gustav Johnson, and Erik Dahlhielm, Three Covenant Presidents (1945) , pp. 47,48,49,52.
What was at stake [was] a matter of overwhelming importance for Covenanters. In the first place, there is the nature of the final authority of Scripture, a matter that we have far from solved, and which has sometimes been approached with explosive words that can threaten to divide one from another, but of whose importance we cannot possibly have any doubt. That the New Testament is ultimately decisive for our order, fellowship, and discipline, no one in our tradition can dispute. The dispute now centers on in what way is it decisive, and how is it to be specifically understood, and what are the general working rules by which we approach it. And any informed person in the Covenant listens to the possible approach of that debate with some fear and dread, because we have learned from the past that almost inevitably people start losing their tempers very early in the process. Eyes grow red with anger, hair stands on end, and we soon long for a day when people were less theologically sophisticated.
But besides this--besides the principle of the authority of the Bible, which none of the people in those fifty years of cell experience really wanted to contradict at all--there came something else. That is, in the course of the argument with Lutheranism (and these people were, as will be seen in a moment, decisively Lutheran in cast and in tone), the Lutherans made a fundamental mistake. They said, “Unless you accept the Anselmic view of the atonement, you are not really Lutheran.” I fail to understand why they did that. Anselm was not a Lutheran. And there was no particular reason to support the notion that this view was particularly dear to Martin Luther, who came four-and-a-half centuries after Anselm. Scholarship has demonstrated that. Something else was at stake here. This was an argument about one thing that was really in the settlement of something else. And nobody at the time was entirely clear what it was about.
But when the Mission Friends, as they now began to call themselves, responded to this Lutheran assertion, the response was to say, “Well, if we can't believe in the Waldenströmian formulation of the atonement and be Lutherans, then we shall not be Lutherans.” This was not the answer the Lutherans wanted. A crucial test involved the admission of candidates to the Mission Institute at Johannelund, a training school run by the Evangelical National Foundation (a Rosenian institution). Waldenström, a provincial delegate of the ENF, soon made it quite clear that he thought that the only test to be applied was not the question, “Do you subscribe to the unaltered Augsburg Confession?” Rather, it was “Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ to be your Savior and Lord?” In short, was there to be a creedal test, or was the test to be a statement of faith in Jesus? For Waldenström, it could only be the latter. For the low-church Lutherans, it could only be the former. The Augustana Synod in America agreed, for this is what it meant to be Lutheran.
For the Mission Friends in America, it meant becoming, as they had in Sweden, increasingly non-creedal. Or to say--as David Nyvall finally, in his clearest way, formulated it--that creeds are all right as local and temporary expressions of what we think. They are the stuff out of which we define things to suit ourselves at any particular time and place. But the inexhaustible source, from which all creeds come, is the New Testament. And in adopting the New Testament, we have potentially adopted all the correct creeds that can ever be formed. For the severe logician or committed creedalist, that leaves something to be desired. It is a meandering fence, unless you have some working rules and some common understandings. But it is a statement about openness. It is a statement that the fence is not going to have a padlocked or unnecessarily narrow gate. It is a statement that the purpose is not to protect the fence, but that the purpose is to protect the planting.
Zenos E. Hawkinson (1925-1997), “Fencing” (1978)
From Anatomy of the Pilgrim Experience: Reflections on Being a Covenanter, Edited by Philip J. Anderson and David E. Hawkinson (2000), pp. 38,39.
The Covenant is Formed
The conference [Organizational Meeting of the Covenant in America, 1885] opened on the 18th of February in the Swedish Mission Tabernacle, located at 30th and La Salle Streets [Chicago], with a sermon by the Rev. F. M. Johnson, the pastor of the church, who chose as his text: “I am a companion of all them that fear Thee, and of them that observe Thy precepts” (Ps. 119:63). In a clear and inspiring manner he applied the words of the psalmist to the particular occasion, making his audience feel a real desire to unite with their fellow Christians in forwarding the great cause of our God and Saviour. The Rev. C. A. Björk then continued emphasizing that the Christians are in reality united in Christ and that the delegates had come together from different parts of the country for the purpose of bringing about an outward union on the basis of the union already existing in fact. This preliminary service was never to be forgotten by those who had the privilege of being present. The Spirit of God was indeed very near, and every Christian heart was lifted above the small matters which sometimes disturb peace and harmony among the children of God.
C. V. Bowman (1868-1937), The Mission Covenant of America (1925), pp. 142,143.
There is evidence that the Covenant grew out of a dialectical process which visualized something more than an organization of local mission societies. It did not have a clearly defined denominational concept.; in this respect it was practically congregational, placing its empasis upon the church as local and refusing to subscribe to any set confession or form of church life. Life was to dominate, not structure. But the process out of which the Covenant came: the Ministerial Conference, the Communion Petition, the General Free Church Conference, the decision to take over ministerial schools and to send out missionaries–all spoke for the creation of an organism, a body, with a life and destiny not independent of but transcending the local church.
Karl A. Olsson (1913-1996), By One Spirit (1962), pp. 119,120.
The Free Mission Friends opposed all notions of federation or union. But in 1885 a group of people met in Chicago to form such a union. After Bible study, prayer, and discussion the group concluded: “A union of Christian churches and organizations ought to take place on the basis of God's Word and between those who have faith in Christ; that have confidence in and love each other; and that want to walk in peace and unity.” This simple decision marked the birth of the Evangelical Covenant Church. These brief words represent a significant statement of doctrine: a union of churches is also a church.
The question may well be asked, “How does such a union of congregational churches differ from presbyterian polity?” The question is relevant because the Covenant ordains pastors as a denomination, rather than the local church. Our answer is that in the Covenant mutual commitment, submission, and service--not constitutional or legal compulsion--sustain our union. In presbyterian polity the larger body can intervene and impose its will on the local church. In congregational polity the larger body can admit or dismiss the local church. It cannot intervene formally or take control without the consent of the local church. In this sense the Covenant remains clearly congregational in polity.
Karl Olsson emphatically claims that our union “has seen itself as a whole, as a body. It has been a forbund--a Covenant from the beginning.” Many words might be used to describe this union. It might be the term “association,” but that is too casual and informal. It might mean “consociation,” which gives a more solid or enduring quality. It could mean federation or confederation, but the terms perhaps smack too much of secular constitutional language.
The term we have chosen is covenant. It is our desire to see this word used to describe the union--not simply in a secular sense but in the biblical sense. It is a holy, sacred union not held together by legal coercion. It is a union of self-governing churches bound together by something much stronger. It is an indissoluble union in Christ that is bound by unbreakable commitment and fidelity. Such a covenant can only be born through and sustained by the grace of God. But that is what the biblical covenant is all about.
Paul E. Larsen (1933- ), “Democracy and Congregationalism”
From Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), pp. 147,148.
The Mission Covenant founded by this merger [of the Mission and Ansgar Synods, 1885] was a union of churches and missionary societies, not of individuals. The authorized representatives of these churches and conferences constitute the annual conference; thus we have a congregational form of government. Since 1937 our official name has been The Evangelical Mission Covenant Church of America.
Hjalmar Sundquist (1869-1949), “The Christian Church,” in Covenant Church Membership (Late 1930s), p.15.
Governing Principles - Churches
When the American Covenant emerged in the 1880s it was embroiled in a deep controversy--almost a "civil war"--over the meaning of congregational life and the union of churches. The “free” Mission Friends, who became what is known today as the Evangelical Free Church (a 1950 merger of the Swedish and Danish-Norwegian Free churches), insisted upon a granular independency of the individual and local church as the basis for any larger cooperation. The Covenant clearly identified itself as an organic whole, part of the universal church, whose own parts are comprised of interrelated, interdependent churches and institutions, not individuals. In terms of congregational polity, this placed the Covenant firmly in the camp of something more formal, more hierarchical in its mutual responsibilities and commitments of each part to the whole, based on communal persuasion rather than bureaucratic coercion. It is here that local autonomy was qualified to include something more presbyterial (for lack of a better word) on regional and national levels. Through time this involved the development of regional conferences and superintendents, the role of the Annual Meeting and Executive Board, the administration of denominational mission work, education, benevolent institutions, and a national ministerium.
Philip J. Anderson (1949- ), “The Community of Friends in Christ: Order and the Evangelical Covenant Church,” from Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), p. 105.
What kind of church government we would want might be something upon which we are far from unanimous. But we need some kind of government.... The need for order is not native. It is a need not inherited but acquired.... Without government no congregation of people can exist for any length of time. And further, in selecting a form of government, consideration must be given not only to what is best but also to what is possible. “Apostolic” is no form of government in the sense that we have any apostolic commandment [that] prescribes one form in preference to another. Are we mature enough for self-government? Then it is also our right or rather our duty to govern ourselves.... Our free government is good as long as it protects conscience and thought from tyranny. When it ceases to give this protection to the individual, the door is open to despotism, beneficial or destructive, whichever God sees that we merit.
David Nyvall (1863-1946), From 1916
Reprinted in The Covenant Companion, October 25, 1932, pp. 6,7,8.
On one occasion a man with whom Waldenström [Paul Peter, 1838-1917] was conversing objected to churches having constitutions. “Where in the Bible does it say anything about constitutions?” said the man. Waldenström admitted that this was so but said that there had to be some established order for the work to be carried on. “Why, all that is needed,” responded the other,“ are the minutes of the various meetings.” To this Waldenström. answered: “But where in the Bible is it written that one should keep minutes of a meeting?”
A variation of this story may be the one of the man who said that no constitution was needed, but only a few rules, to which Waldenström answered that that is just what a constitution is.
From Herbert E. Palmquist (1896-1981), The Wit and Wisdom of Our Fathers (1967), pp. 27,28.
From its beginning the Covenant has seen itself as a bonded community of believers. The very controversies surrounding its birth clearly attest to the fact that the denomination conceived of itself as a Covenant in the full sociological and...full biblical sense of that term. It was to be a community committed first to Christ, then to each other, and then to Christ’s work in the world.
In examining the original constitution, Articles II and III are of particular interest:
II CONFESSION
This Covenant confesses God’s Word, the holy Scriptures of Old and New Testament, as the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct.
III PURPOSE
The purpose of the Covenant is, in full harmony with the teaching and example of Christ and the apostles, to work for the spread of Chrit’s gospel, for true Christian congregational life, and for unity of service among individual churches.
The first words of Article II are, “The Covenant confesses.” The very wording of that sentence precludes looking at the term “Covenant” as simply a legal constitution. It is rather used in the broader sense of a community that stipulates the terms of its union. It is a covenant in the sociological an biblical sense....
The opposition to a union that would comprise a new community rather than an association of individuals and assemblies is informative. The more radical Free Mission Friends were afraid of institutions and oppressive covenants. They had suffered enough from bishops, excommunications, and synods. Believers were covenanted only to God, they believed. Denominations and covenanted organizations were wrong In this sense, the dissenters–who eventually became the Evangelical Free Church–dissented from the idea of a congregation or a denomination as a covenanted entity.... They did not see the irony that in forsaking the notion of a covenanted Christian community, they were embracing a fundamental position of modernity and forsaking a biblical teaching....
The Covenant, however, decisively moved into community as a conscious step. In this way they clearly understood the significance of their decision. The minutes and news articles clearly demonstrate this. [Karl] Olsson summarizes well: “The Covenant Church, considered as an entity...has seen itself as a whole, as a body. It has been a förbund–a Covenant–from the beginning.” In doing this, the founders intuitively sensed what sociologists have now confirmed. They sensed that the spiritual life of the individual is rooted in the covenanted community of the believers.
Paul E. Larsen (1933- ), The Mission of a Covenant (1985), pp. 7,8.
Just what is the Covenant Church anyway? There are a number of ways to answer that question. The Covenant Church could be described in terms of statistics, or organizational structure, or doctrinal beliefs.
But perhaps it is most meaningful to say that The Evangelical Covenant Church is the custodian of four values which, when taken together, seem to be unique. Other denominations have one or more of these values, but no other groups appear to hold all four with the degree of commitment that characterizes the Covenant. These values are:
1. we are evangelical, but not exclusive;
2. we are biblical, but not doctrinaire;
3. we are congregational, but not independent; and
4. we are traditional, but not rigid.
...The really important things of the Christian faith–salvation by faith and the incarnation, for example-are not Covenant distinctives. They are Christian distinctives. We hold these, and much more, in common with the whole Church of Jesus Christ.
Covenant distinctives are not nearly as important as Christian distinctives, but they are important in describing the way that we do things. They are values that have shaped our past; values that still motivate and inspire us as we move into our second century.
Everett L. Wilson (1936- ) and Donald Lindman (1933- ), “Covenant Distinctives: What Does It Mean to Be a Covenanter?” (Covenant Tract, 1988).
We usually attended the Kozu church on Sunday mornings. The service began at ten o'clock and ended about half past eleven. We felt at home amongst those people, and we liked Pastor Horikawa's preaching, for although we could not understand everything that he said, we caught the spirit of the meeting.
One morning he spoke about the principles that governed the organization of the Kozu church. He read the statement of creed : “We believe in the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, as the Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine and conduct.”
Why should it be necessary to make belief in a number of doctrinal statements a prerequisite for belonging to the Church? There could be no absolute statement, for some might not be able to honestly say that they comprehended some fine points of theology, and thus they were automatically excluded from the Church because of their sincerity. And an absolutism left no room for further revelation. Pastor Horikawa summed it up by saying, “We believe that the Spirit of God which is in the believer is able to reveal the Word of God to those who read it with a seeking spirit.”
Edward G. Nelson (1914-1988), Assignment in Japan (1952), p. 187.
...The Covenant Church, like many of its sister denominations, is a Christian church based on biblical faith. A hundred years ago it made a historic decision to risk doctrinal freedom within scriptural faith. This might be said to be the substance of its constitution. Throughout its history the Covenant Church has no doubt been tempted, in the midst of the embarrassment of its doctrinal freedom, to change the constitution and establish more precise theological norms. Some of the faithful have wanted to return to the Lutheran confessions of its origins. Others have argued for an evangelical stance as reflected in the confessional statements of the National Association of Evangelicals or of a number of cognate denominations.
Now undoubtedly there may be greater heart’s ease and tranquility in such prescriptions than in the jangled tunes with which theological diversity assaults our ears. Someday we may have to conclude that the Swedish Lutherans and not the Rosenian Mission Friends were right when in 1867 they cast their vote for a more rigid Lutheranism. I need not remind my readers that the power to make or to resist such a decision is not mine.
However, this book will be written from the perspective that the hundred years of history under the guidelines of Psalm 119:63 and the present constitution have been preponderantly good and should be celebrated as to the greater glory of God, Ad majorem gloriam Dei.
Karl A. Olsson (1913-1996), Into One Body...by the Cross, Volume Two (1986), p.xii.
...The Covenant has not believed it necessary to reproduce in the life of the present church all of the forms or patterns of worship and organization which appeared in the New Testament church. We must recapture for our day the spirit, the commitment, and the apostolic message of the New Testament church, but the forms of worship, ministry, and organization which it developed are not to be absolutized. Such forms were not meant to be inviolate rules for the church throughout its history. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the church must remain free to create its own forms for a new day.
Donald C. Frisk (1911- ), The New Life in Christ (1969), p. 67.
For the Covenant the question of denominational unity has always been paramount. During its early years it fought a number of battles not to guarantee the independency of the individual or the local church but to maintain its identity and integrity. The Covenant principle was assailed by the Free; Covenant centrality vested in its own school, missionary program, and publications was under constant attack by the Mission Friend Publishing Company (a private enterprise) and by independent missionary bodies; the Covenant identity was undermined, although lovingly, by the Congregationalists and Chicago Theological Seminary. Fridolf Risberg, the competent and beloved teacher of the Swedish Department of CTS, saw no future for the Covenant.(By One Spirit, p. 736).
This holistic view has not meant that the Covenant has governed from the top. It has been accused of the latter by those who do not know what ecclesiasticism is, but in the main the record is fairly decent. The ruling body of the church continues to be the annual meeting and despite many wild and wooly things, the essential character of the denomination has remained stable during its nearly hundred years of history.
The weakness of the Covenant is not a veiled despotism but something much more subtle--a fierce and sometimes uncritical family loyalty, a sort of parochialism. The loyalty is not to a structure but to a mystique which flows from its understanding of itself as a non-creedal, life movement, a family in the faith. The life movement is centered in the living Christ and the faith and theology of the Covenant are nourished and directed by its devotion to the Bible, but it has happened that the Covenant has been kinder to its loyal heretics than to its critics.
As far as I know, there is no instance of the Covenant expelling one of its heretics so long as he did not attack the mystique itself, but some of the critics who did not understand the Covenant dynamic have had to find a home elsewhere. (Having said this, I must admit that to identify and deal with heresy in non-creedal church like the Covenant is virtually impossible. In effect, the heretic is not the theologically heterodox, but the one who questions the validity of Covenant principles and practice. Because of this a number of investigations into the relation of Covenant doctrine and freedom have been largely fruitless. No one really knows what Covenant doctrine is and hence it is impossible to know what freedom means).
Karl A. Olsson (1913-1996), “Similarities and Differences in the Churches of the Federation–America, ” pp. 9,10, from Awake and Free, The International Federation of Free Evangelical Churches (A Bound Copy of Unpublished Lectures, 1971).
Governing Principles - Ministry
The Jönköping Society [founded in 1853] was unusually strict in the selection of home missionaries. A man was not permitted to enter its service until he had witnessed for Christ in the vicinity of his home for a period of time and won the confidence of the Christians and the respect of the unconverted. Then the Christians among whom he had witnessed petitioned the board of the society in his behalf, and he was called to preach at a quarterly meeting, whereupon the board interrogated him behind locked doors concerning his past, his conversion, his divine call to the ministry, his code of conduct in temporal affairs, his home life, and his ability to care for his family, if he bad one, on the meager salary that would be his. If he passed this heart-searching examination, which became known as “the narrow gate,” he was accepted for a period of six months. If in that time he proved himself unfit, the call was not extended.
Erik Dahlhielm (1880-1955), A Burning Heart: a Biography of Erik August Skogsbergh (1951), p. 45.
Because of the license issued by the Mission church the pastor had the necessary legal rights to perform ministerial duties, but by this license he was not in a scriptural way set apart for the ministry as a calling for life. He should properly be set apart by the laying on of hands and by prayer. How to proceed in this matter was an open question. Could such an ordination be performed by a group of Christians or must a previously ordained minister officiate in such an ordination? The problem in their mind was the problem of the apostolic succession. After considerable study and discussion on the subject it was finally decided to apply to the Lutheran Synod of Northern Illinois for the ordination of the Rev. J. M. Sanngren. The Synod consented to ordain him and one of the pastors of the Synod, the Rev. Charles Anderson, was instructed to officiate. Thus the Rev. J. M. Sanngren was ordained in 1869, and the year following the Rev. C. A. Björk was in like manner ordained with the Rev. J. M. Sanngren officiating.
Having thus arranged the religious work along lines not originally planned and having organized a Mission Church and taken upon themselves to license and ordain ministers independently of the Augustana Synod, the Mission Friends had to expect sharp opposition from the clergy of this synod. All possible means were used to prevent the success of the new Mission Church. But evidently it pleased God to see the work go on and expand. Many immigrants constantly arrived from Sweden, and not a few found in the Mission Church believers with whom they could have fellowship. Souls were won for Christ from time to time. Thus the Mission Friend movement gained in strength and gradually became well established.
C. V. Bowman (1868-1937), The Mission Covenant of America (1925), pp. 47,48.
Pastors and laypersons joining the Covenant often come with a misapprehension about the role of the denomination in the life of the local church. They assume, as in the case of many independent churches, that the local congregation has the final say about the credentialing and discipline of its pastor. But while it is certainly true that the Covenant does not normally interfere in the internal decisions of local churches (in this respect following a congregational principle), it is also true that the ministers licensed or ordained by the Covenant work under the ultimate supervision and discipline of the denomination. Because of this, the denomination and the conference have considerable interest in the type of pastor called by local congregations. Hence good churchmanship dictates that the local church work closely with the regional conference and the Covenant in the selection of a pastor.
Karl A. Olsson (1913-1996), Into One Body...by the Cross, Volume Two (1986), p. 401.
Order and Ardor Today
From the beginning there has been a defenseless quality in Covenant life, like a bluebell growing on the edge of a wheel furrow on a traveled country road. An invasion of other interests and ways of thought has naturally been frequent. The exploiter, too, has been busy. Even so, as someone has said, “The bee that robs the flower of honey also fertilizes it.”
It may well be that we have been driven together even more than we have desired to remain together and that our weakness in numbers, dogmatic definitions, and sharp organization are a part of our character. Our weakness may be our strength in the far-flung future if we have the patience to wait with assurance and thoughtfulness in the strong headwinds.
Eric G. Hawkinson (1896-1984), Images in Covenant Beginnings (1968), p. 29.
The...teachings of the apostles exclude any kind of hierarchical or authoritarian pattern of ministry in the church. It seems probable to me that this inference from the New Testament led Spener (1635-1705) to affirm the equality of men and women in the spiritual priesthood. He set out to develop the men and women of his congregation into ministers in their own right, instituting the collegia pietatis as a laboratory for the development of their spiritual gifts, unleashing them to perform the spiritual priesthood that was theirs by virtue of the new birth, and suggesting the reorganization of the Lutheran church along presbyterial lines in order to open the door of church government to greater lay participation. These were the forms by which Spener hoped that lay ministry would blossom forth and reawaken the church to reflect the image of the New Testament church.
If we were to emulate the spirit of Spener's vision for church reform, we would order our churches in such a way as to maximize lay participation in ministry. We would sustain a network of small group ministries. We would affirm the equality of men and women in ministry. We would eschew all gender exclusive and authoritarian forms of church government. And we would have the courage to experiment with innovative new forms of church order as well. It is my view that in so doing we would be making a valiant attempt to express the pietistic emphasis on the new birth in the ordering of our churches. To what extent, though, that would be the case in actuality is open for debate.
Eric N. Newberg (1948- ), “Spener’s Vision for Church Reform”
From Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), p. 81.
A problem inherent in improved administration and churchmanship (control, accountability, fewer loose ends) may be top-heaviness. With progressive refinement--taking care to eliminate random detail--the risk of ponderousness increases. Task breeds task; the increase of tasks calls for more standard procedures and more qualified personnel, and the presence of these invites the expansion and complication of management. It is probably inevitable that when management becomes grooved, its status grows more absolute, and before long a permanent bureaucracy may be at the door. The organization is developed and complicated for its own sake. Weight has been geometrically multiplied, and in the long run weight impedes function. With it comes a built-in resistance to reform and simplification.
I hear some of the younger people, both lay and clergy, affirm that although they admire the denominational leaders both as persons and as officials, they wonder about the ponderousness of the system.
There is no reason to believe that any organization can totally avoid the bureaucratic traps, but the Church is particularly susceptible to such problems because it tends to rely on a built-in system of blessing its mistakes and canonizing its mediocrities. Most business organizations must show profit to survive, but some churches need only plead good intentions. Nonetheless, the Church does have an effective instrument of audit not available to the business world. The Church, as long as it remains classical in its beliefs, does have eschatology--its cherished doctrine of the last things. The Church believes with James that the Lord is at the door. “Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.“ This conviction continues to infuse reality into the body of Christ.
Karl A. Olsson (1913-1996), Into One Body...by the Cross, Volume Two (1986), pp. 437,438.
What...is to be said of the bewildering diversity of forms of polity in the churches of the United States? Between the extremes of excessive authoritarianism and isolated independency there are a variety of cooperative models in which clergy and laity have worked together in local congregations and in the larger structures of denominations for the upbuilding of the kingdom of God. Perhaps more important than the specific form in a local congregation or denomination is the ongoing process of biblical, historical, theological, and practical reflection about the nature of the church and its purpose in the world. Whatever the form, Robert S. Paul's reflections on New England Congregationalism in Freedom with Order bear repetition: “Authority exercised in the church must take its character from the Christian gospel; it must be ‘ministerial’ rather than ‘magisterial,’ persuasive rather than coercive, redemptive rather than punitive.”
Stephen R. Graham (1957- ), “‘Democratizing’ the Church: Varieties of Leadership and Authority in the United States, ” from Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), p. 98.
With reference to the three general patterns of polity--episcopal, presbyterial, and congregational--the possibility of tyranny and abuse is present in all. Church history offers abundant examples. In the congregational polity of the Covenant, with its formal presbyterial interconnectedness, the denomination is characterized at every level by terms like mutual, lateral, relational, united, together, covenantal, instrumental, familial, associational, and synodical. Of course, each of these terms can mean something quite specific that applies to greater or lesser extents in the Covenant church. But the intent is clear.
Perhaps the Covenant can also capture this intent today by nurturing an understanding of what it means to have been known as Mission Friends. The theme of friendship pervades early Covenant history, as seen, for example, in the hymnody of Rosenius, Sandell, Frykman, and others. The mutual and covenantal pattern of Christian life and service described above could be summarized in this way: the church is a community of friends, with Christ and each other, and should live and behave accordingly. As recorded in John 15, Jesus told his disciples that because of the new commandment of love he would no longer call them servants but would call them friends. Christian community and mission can be seen as the befriending of others in the name of the one who first befriended us.
Though the Covenant has been essentially congregational in polity, and has sought to be biblically based in its pattern, it has never been bound to any particular form of church government. The church is free to adopt whatever form, or forms, the gospel requires for its own effective witness. Early Covenanters spoke repeatedly of the need for harmony in the church and among the churches. This implies that the Covenant is a community of communities living in democratic harmony. While there are many aggregate parts, the whole is a congregate, a congregation, a denomination. This requires a committed interdependence, the chief quality of all communities of friendship, not a tenacious, tendentious, or even casual independence. Even a passing acquaintance with Covenant history reveals how painful and problematic has been the challenge of living into this mature ideal of life together. How can Christians, who are the friends of Christ, the beloved community, regardless of their structure conduct their life together in any other spirit?
Philip J. Anderson (1949- ), “The Community of Friends in Christ: Order and the Evangelical Covenant Church,” from Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), pp. 111,112.
The structures and patterns of congregational decision making and administration need to be assessed and reformed to reflect the truth and justice we advocate in society beyond the gathered church. This is not a minor point of concern, for all too often church governance can drift along in an autocratic or oligarchic mode--i.e., rule by one or by the few with power. Since all of our men and women have gifts of the Holy Spirit and special endowments of the Creator, since we are all members of the body but with differing functions, it is important to exhibit this unity in diversity, to invite and train broad participation in leadership and governance.
David W. Gill (1946- ), “The Unique Role of the Church in a Troubled Society”
From Servant Leadership, Volume Two: Contemporary Models and the Emerging Challenge, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), pp. 74,75.
Since the tension between ardor and order is always with us, some suggestions need to be made. Each pastor and leader should:
1. Place the highest emphasis on the church's dependence on the grace of God. This is the union between theology and piety. Unless this is maintained the church leadership will be afflicted with both arrogance and despair. Decline will be inevitable.
2. Teach clearly the biblical foundations of our covenantal polity, both with regard to congregational practice and our denominational family. The average person has no understanding of the importance of our system of governance.
3. Teach by word and example the biblical truths concerning the servant nature of leadership, the importance of fidelity to covenant, and the fruits of the Spirit. We need more emphasis on fruits of the Spirit than the gifts of the Spirit.
4. Focus on the mission of the church as given by our Lord in the great commission. A strong sense of mission will tend to minimize power struggles and interpersonal conflicts.
5. Use the planning process to gain broad participation in governance by seeking evaluation, recommendations, suggestions, and participation from everyone. Planning can, of course, become simply another way of perpetuating bureaucracy. Where it is simple and participative, it strengthens democratic vitality.
6. Seek broadest participation of lay people in church and denominational meetings. Pastoral leadership is not control, but the empowerment of believers for ministry. The common person is both king and priest.
7. Use anniversaries both locally and denominationally to celebrate the renewal of the Covenant. Perhaps the Covenant should help develop a liturgy for covenantal renewal on a congregational and even denominational level as the United Methodists have done.
8. Seek to understand and practice the balance between ardor and order. The tensions between free prayers and written prayers, traditional music and contemporary music, high liturgy and free liturgy, as well as evangelism and nurture are involved.
Paul E. Larsen (1933- ), “Democracy and Congregationalism”
From Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), pp. 154,155.
The Covenant of the future, if I understand the generation now coming into leadership, may commit itself to a lighter and more athletic version of Covenantism than we have helped to form. In such a version impulses will travel more quickly from periphery to center and from center to periphery than is possible in a more traditional structure.
Such a Covenantism should affect every branch of our work. It will mean that personhood and personal relationships are not only cherished but made even more intrinsic to our way of working. Role identities and functions will not be eliminated, but they will more than now be leavened by the freedom and courtesy of faith. Our theology will be more relational and our lifestyle less than now determined by traditional manners and methods. In many situations such as board and committee meetings there will be an expressed need to participate both cerebrally and emotionally, and Covenant will mean even more than now a true equity in Christ. The emphasis in the local church will be both on effective organizational functioning and on the development of a “family of faith” in which nurturing and caring are shared responsibilities....
...For me the crucified and risen life is a life in relationships, in which the values of truth and grace exist side by side in unvarying interaction. I believe that the future of the Covenant as “one body” in whatever we are called to do depends on our openness to that gift of the Holy Spirit which makes us one in the Spirit of God, with our own selves, with the people around us, and with the environing world. It is probably not our calling to control the people we have been given or to improve them, for those are the works of the Holy Spirit; we are called to identify with them, to stand with them “under the mercy,” and to be bound with them forever in the bond of love.
Karl A. Olsson (1913-1996), Into One Body...by the Cross, Volume Two (1986), p.444,445,447.
Central to the spirit of Covenant leadership from the beginning has been a concern to express the new life we have in Christ. As in most renewal and revival movements, an aversion to creedalisin has been part of that spirit. Though appreciated as helpful statements of faith, even the classic Christian creeds were no match among our forebears for the richer expressions in the Bible itself. There has been a similar aversion among us to any single ordering of worship and congregational life, even though we have clearly been concerned that things be done decently and in order. “With us [David Nyvall once wrote in “Covenant Ideals”], as with the apostolic church, strength lies not in number and accomplishments, nor in order and discipline, nor even in health and wealth. Our outlook is certainly not in any telescopic vision of the immensity of nature, nor in any microscopic vision of its depth, but in the constitutional sufficiency of faith.” What has mattered most to Covenanters, it seems, is life itself--all of life, but especially new life in Christ--and what can be done to serve that life and share it with others.
In a strange way, the very pressures threatening to undo us in our time, whatever their origin, are also stimulants to reaffirm that new life in Christ and help shape the church accordingly. In our early history, [Covenant historian Karl A. Olsson has written],"'Covenant' was not intended to mean church or denomination or synod [but] its opposite–that is, fellowship, gathering, a joining of hands ... something relational, functional, and dynamic.” Today, part of our challenge must be to rediscover this essential identity “not in terms of brick and mortar, statistical charts, rate of growth, size of investments, magnitude and sophistication of staffs, and leverage in the world of power, but in terms of honest and loving relationships, happenings, strange visitations of the Spirit, miracles, prophecies, conversions, [and] ... whirling songs of praise.”
But spiritual ardor without spiritual order is hardly what our Lord had in mind for the church. Spontaneity by itself is neither biblical nor practical. Too many today are tempted to trust their own experience--even their own spiritual experience--more than the wisdom of the body of Christ to which they belong. People need to examine afresh what Scripture, Christian tradition, and contemporary knowledge have to teach them. It is incumbent on us to achieve together the proper balance between individual ardor and communal order. This challenge, when measured by centuries, is not essentially different that it has always been, but it does need to be met.
James R. Hawkinson (1930- ), “The Spirit of Covenant Leadership”
From Servant Leadership, Volume One: Authority and Governance in the Church, James R. Hawkinson & Robert K. Johnston, editors (1993), pp. 2,3.
