Covenant III—Who Signs?

The covenant discussions that are happening at Berean are such a good thing. People are digging in the word of God and reading and rereading passages. They are studying. They are looking for themselves and asking questions.

It is reminiscent of the people of Berea in Acts. This is a good thing. Anytime people are studying the Bible the end result will be a stronger church. Mature Spirit-filled people can read the Bible, discuss things and come to reasonable conclusions.

Some are saying we want a covenant that is only Biblical; others are saying we need only the Bible. These two groups can come together very easily if the covenant contains only those things that are Biblical. Then both sides should not have a problem. If the Bible-only person can see Biblical phrases, thoughts, and concepts throughout the covenant, then he or she will be able to support it because it is in fact a compilation of scriptures.

Some are asking: "why do we have to sign it?" You don't! What must happen is: It must be taught, presented, explained, followed, adhered to, lived by, displayed and understood. The point is not the signature; the point is that every member knows the covenant and is striving to live by it because it is Biblical and as a Spirit-filled, follower of Christ our goal is to live by the Bible. It is good for instruction, doctrine, correction and reproof.

I believe that people in leadership positions in the church should have no problems signing a covenant; the signature communicates that you as a director, supervisor, leader, teacher, deacon, pastor understand what is expected and will strive by the Grace of God to meet those expectations. Those expectations may be both Biblical and constitutional.

For example, it is expected that pastors preach with a tie around their necks on Sundays—that is not Biblical just a reasonable cultural expectation—nothing more.

More important expectations that are not defined in the Bible are articulated in the church constitution.

No comments: