Anytime we speak of church polity, we are talking about government. There is nothing specifically magical or pure in this government just because it is the Church. So often the conversation about the who, what, when, and where, and how of Ecclesiology gets lost in an endless pursuit of doctrinal precision. But the foundation of the conversation is absolute: we are talking about who has the right to organize, and dictate, and distribute and authenticate.
Let us never lose site of what Government really is:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington
John, in reading some things about the various forms of church government, it seems most “truly” reformed churches adhere to either a congregational or presbyterian form of church government. However, the SGM model is episcopalian it seems (heirarchy: power flows from the top down only)
So here is my question – (and please correct me if I am wrong in my questioning based on wrong information) why do you think SGM tries to pass themselves off as Reformed simply because they are Calvinistic when none of their other beliefs (views on baptism, church govt., charismatic giftings, etc.) remotely resemble historical reformed theology?
Is is fair to say SGM is Calvinistic but not reformed, even though they call themselves reformed?
Concerned… you ask some great questions and I think the answers are important to the SGM phenomena and the broader state of Christianity … I do have some thoughts on this very subject… but it will take me a bit to put then together…
I’d love to hear what others have to say on this subject while I organize my thoughts…
Floor is open.