Over the years I have been thinking about a problem: we are Presbyterian, yet we have a text, not a sample; a norm, not a model. The Reformed faith, the Presbyterian spirit, including the freedom we speak of, is a very valuable and missing republican spirit, both for the church and for Chinese society. Or representative government, which is actually very distant and foreign to us, is almost the exact opposite of what we have experienced in our lives since we were children.

Now, we are beginning to accept it rationally, and I think it is God’s leading, and it comes from biblical revelation. There is an analogy that talks about how this is like a traditional railroad track, with a track made of iron, with a log, and then gravel underneath. I often feel as if we can lay a railroad track very quickly in my personal life or in the young Presbyterian Church. That is, that track was all custom made, basically, in reference to the Presbyterian Church in America, right? Imported from the United States. But the gravel that was laid underneath couldn’t be imported from the United States, it couldn’t come from Scotland, and it couldn’t come from Taiwan. Because that gravel is our broken life, and what is laid under that gravel is our life experience.

Mr. Ko spoke that we are not just talking about how Presbyterianism is, let’s think about how church governance itself should be. I think one important idea that I want to express in this message is that when we usually talk about church governance, we say that there are just these three in the church tradition: episcopacy, presbyterianism (or what is called council, collegiality, or representative), and congregationalism (or what is called democracy).

Then there is the analogy that corresponds these three institutions of the Church to the political civilizations of mankind, which have not escaped them through the ages. After Aristotle explored hundreds of city-states in ancient Greece, he found that there were only a few: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Outside of the church, there are only these three types of societies, so-called political systems, institutions, and polities. This monarchy corresponds to a bad monarchy, which is a tyrant; democracy corresponds to a bad democracy, which is a mob; and aristocracy corresponds to a bad aristocracy, which is an oligarchy. So, Aristotle says, just these three, three good ones correspond to three bad ones, pretty much these six.

I think episcopacy, presbyterianism, and congregationalism, these three are the second level of distinction in church governance. However, what is most important to me today is not to talk about some specific practices of presbyterianism included in this second level of distinction, but to return to the first level. What is the best church polity according to the spirit of the Reformation? Or again you ask, “On what basis do you judge that to be the best church polity? What is your criterion for judging it?”

Mr. Ko Preached a sermon and used an analogy of the relationship between a drop of water and the sea. First of all, it is the relationship between man and God. After man’s relationship with God is righted, it will bring out man’s relationship with others. The governance of the church is not talking about what should be done administratively or institutionally, but its most fundamental point is what is the relationship between this drop of water, which is free in Christ and has its sins forgiven, and the other drops of water.

I would look at it from the Trinitarian view, the relationship with that most fundamental spirit of the first level of Presbyterian or church governance. And then also from the view of man, our view of man is that man is a totally corrupt human being. The Christian view of man is quite different from this individualized, personal liberalism of modern man, and we would go back to a view of man called the community view of man. We see man’s freedom on a vertical plane, looking at the relationship of this man to God, the relationship of God’s eternal will to freedom. Also, on the horizontal plane, we look at the relationship between the freedom of the individual and the community, the community with others. What is the freedom of the community? The freedom of the community is in a vertical relationship with the freedom of the individual. Is the eternal will of God in conflict and contradiction with predestination and with human freedom?
When it comes to the governance of the church, it is actually asking about a relationship on a plane. That is, is the freedom of the individual contradictory to the freedom of the community, the freedom of the community? In fact, for Chinese people today, especially intellectuals who are converted in Chinese culture and are influenced by this contemporary liberal thinking (I used to be a very hard-line liberal). We will have several breakthrough points, is there a God or not? And then influenced by scientistic atheistic thought, we still have a kind of variation of Eastern thought, even though we are converted, which is to be alone with the spirit of heaven and earth, or to be alone with Jesus Christ. So, there is another layer of barrier at this time, and that is about community, my relationship with others.

In the eyes of God, all of us are actually rabble-rousers. So, the governance of the church shows that when you are not in a crowd, it doesn’t show that you are part of the crowd, because when you are alone, the pose is more beautiful. But when you are with the crowd, you are part of the crowd. When you are together, you can smash things, when you are together, you can cross the street in Chinese style, you can wait for people to come together, right? How does your freedom present itself when you are not in the midst of a crowd? So, the most fundamental aspect of church governance is this kind of relationship.

I. Presbyterian Theology – Covenant Theology

First of all, our Presbyterian theology is a covenant theology. Like Psalm 111, which we read this morning, God speaks of His works all the way to the highest peak – His salvation, where God’s covenant is mentioned twice. He is redeeming us according to this covenant, and this covenant is His salvation, and His salvation is a presentation of this covenant and a way of expanding His eternal purpose, a way of establishing a relationship with us. This way of developing His kingdom is the theology of the covenant.

1. Legalistic Features

Therefore, covenant theology necessarily brings about covenant governance, and this is church governance, not just Presbyterianism, but as long as it is the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, covenant theology should produce a covenant governance. This is the most fundamental spirit of church governance. Covenant governance brings out certain characteristics, especially in the Western church. When I say the Western Church, I mean the Latin Church, not the West as compared to us today. The Western Church is divided into the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church. In the tradition of the Latin Church there is what we call a very legalistic theology. The theology of the Latin Church is very legalistic in nature, and this is a characteristic of Calvin and of the Reformed Church as a whole. It may be a characteristic of Calvin’s old fathers that so many of the next ones read the law, and I read the law. This is our strength, and the whole Latin Church has this trait. It would bring out covenant governance from the theology of the covenant, and its theology had a legalistic character.

Today we would turn the tables and stand in our own tradition and reflect slightly on it. This overpowering legalistic character may require some synthesis. In this culture of jurisprudence, this covenantal governance, it brings out some qualities. For example, some of the terms, rule of law, charter, collegiality, or council, or even litigation, or court, will become Presbyterian in relation to the governance of other churches. Then, it will also bring out a church culture that is characterized by a legalistic culture. For example, it will emphasize faithfulness; it will emphasize covenant keeping; it will emphasize responsibility; it will emphasize obedience; it will emphasize rules and regulations. Of course, that’s what Paul said, that everything should be done in order. One of my co-workers just said, “I heard there is a drama tonight, can I bring someone else?” I said, “I really can’t, because this is the presbytery. So, this is a church culture of a more legalistic nature brought about by covenantal governance.

2. The Relationship of Multiple Covenants

This series of key words I just listed may be more vivid for people to put together a picture. Even another word is included, such as the emphasis on conscience. Then, it would be difficult for me to express this covenantal governance of the Presbyterian Church in two words. For it is not only a covenant relationship, but more precisely, it is called a multiple covenant relationship. What Presbyterianism expresses is a multiple covenant relationship, or, as we often use the idea of a republic, then it is called a multiple republic.

This covenant is first of all a covenantal relationship between the Triune God and His people vertically, and then this relationship brings about a parallelism between His people. They are parallel, a multiple covenant relationship in a horizontal direction. So between the congregation and the congregation, there will be a multiple relationship, and the multiple covenant is what we usually call the federal concept. It has double or even triple sovereignty, which is actually difficult for traditional political culture to accept. Including the French and European political science culture since the Enlightenment. Because they believe that any group of people, and finally a country, must have a sovereign.

But in the relationship of multiple contracts, it will present a characteristic that you can not find the sovereign. Because it has multiple sovereigns, there is no single sovereign. Therefore, a community that does not have a single sovereign is more able to express that they have a true sovereign who is above and through them, the one who reigns among us not by sight, Jesus Christ, or the Triune God. Because the nature of the church is that God reigns, there can be no single sovereign in the midst of one’s multiple covenant relationships.

The British system is clearer. Britain is mixed, a fusion between the King and the Parliament, a mixed sovereign. That is, when the king is in Parliament, than when the king is not in Parliament. When the King leaves Parliament, the King is not sovereign, but the King is in Parliament. This mixed state is called a mixed sovereign in the British system of government. It is even more so in the American system of government, which is a little bit strange in that it is influenced by the church, especially the Presbyterian church. You cannot find a single person in the American system of government who can fully represent the country.

This is something that the Chinese cannot understand. We must have someone to represent this country, our President Xi, right? The French are the same way, the French have a presidential system, the prime minister is under the presidential system. Taiwan is also like this, there is military power under the president, so this is called the super presidential system. In this super presidential system, there must be a person or a position, an earthly position, which is the representative of a single sovereign. Most countries are like this, most people are like this, there must be a person or a position that is the representative of a single sovereign.

What happens when we find out that the United States cannot be represented by a single person? Wouldn’t that be a mess? Can the president represent the entire nation of the United States? He only represents at the executive level, doesn’t he? Can the Supreme Court represent? The Supreme Court represents at the judicial level, and they can impeach the president. And can Congress represent? Congress is representative in the sense of their national sovereignty, but in fact none of them are represented by a single office and a single person, why? Because their system of government is characterized by a multiple covenant relationship.

This is also true in the Presbyterian Church, where the ward system means that there is a covenant relationship between the congregations. In our wards there are many different churches, do we have a relationship between these churches? We have this relationship, it’s not so big that we can say who can order who, we have a vertical centralized relationship. But it is not without relationship, it is a covenant relationship. In this covenant relationship, the district council is a sovereign, and each congregation is also a sovereign. If there is a general assembly in the future, the general assembly is also a sovereign, and it is a multiple sovereign.

One of the very important things in a church congregation is that it is elected, and election means that the pastoral relationship is also a covenant relationship. They have a membership system, and there are two parts to the membership system. One part is to show the pastoral relationship between the members and the pastor; the second part means that there is a covenant relationship between them, right? When a Christian becomes a member of a church, it means that he has a covenant with all the other brothers and sisters in that church, right? Then, he has a covenant relationship with me (as the pastor of the church), I am his pastor, he is my member, and I have a pastoral and pastoral relationship with him.

There was a man who had been a member of our church for a long time, but did not want to become a church member. Once I asked him, “Do you want to be a member of the church?” He said, “Why do you have to be a church member?” I said, “Let’s not make it so complicated, let’s ask a more personal question, do you want me to be your pastor? Am I your pastor or not?” He said, “You are my pastor.” “So now I’m asking you, do you want to join the congregation?” So what I’m saying is, “Hey, I’d love to be your pastor, okay? Do you want to do what? Right?” Then this …… I’m asking you that …… Right? But this is only possible if you agree, you agree and I agree, I agree and you agree, then the contract is established. If you agree and I don’t agree, it won’t work, and if I agree and you don’t agree, it won’t work either.

So the election to the priesthood means that pastoral care is a covenant relationship, and it is consensual. However, in this willingness there is God’s leading and obedience to Him, a covenant relationship between us, and then a covenant relationship between the members. The parliamentary system means the same among the elders or within the deacon board, there is a covenant relationship between fellow workers.
So a theology of covenant brings a covenantal governance. When we identify with the Presbyterian Church, we are saying that the Presbyterian system reflects more of me within it. It reflects more of a covenantal governance that is more mature and comprehensive than some of the other systems and cultures of church governance that have developed over the history of the church.