Well, that’s the ideal anyway.
Baptists who understand our polity and who have a healthy understanding of autonomy, soul competency, the priesthood of the believer, and the role, ministry, and amazing power of the Holy Spirit don’t bully. They don’t have to. They don’t want to. They are horrified at the prospect.
In reality, sometimes our ideals suffer. We have, in recent years, thrown out a couple of babies with bathwater we found yucky. We are fans of neither the liberal/moderate or the charismatic bathwater, and we’ve thrown them both out forcefully. But I’m afraid we’ve thrown some precious babies out with that bathwater and we need to wash those babies off and welcome them back in the house.
Words like soul competency, priesthood of the believer, and autonomy were once highly valued among Southern Baptists. Unfortunately, because they were used in a certain way (I believe an incorrect way) by the moderate/liberal faction during the shooting war of the Conservative Resurgence, many conservatives became suspicious of the concepts in general. We made a common mistake, throwing out the good with the bad and we left behind some things we ought not to have done.
The conservative resurgence was led by powerful men who were pastors of megachurches. They tended to have a high view of pastoral authority (not inherently inimical to soul competency or priesthood of the believer) and were reacting against the denigration of that concept by some within the moderate faction. As conservatives gained more power, the disenfranchised raised the banner of soul competency and priesthood of the believer to the point that conservative churches sometimes formed a negative reaction to these terms.
Then came the explosion of popularity of elder rule and elder leadership in Baptist churches, progeny of the Reformed movement that has rose among us in the 90s and the first decade of the new millennium (the Mohlerennium?). A common error of the opponents of Calvinism is the belief that Calvinists are monolithic. There’s hardly a point on which Calvinists agree – other than the sovereignty of God in salvation. But many within that movement have a very high idea of pastoral authority.
- One popular pastor (not SBC) told his church, “to question me is to sin.” I nearly lost my dentures when I saw that, and I don’t have dentures. I checked the quote. It was accurate.
- James McDonald (strangely, a speaker at our pastor’s conference this year), identified congregational church government as satanic in origin.
- I have had discussions with other Baptists on this blog who found the concepts of local church (and entity) autonomy and soul competency to be biblically suspect.
It is safe to say that many younger Southern Baptists, raised in the soil of the conservative SBC, and perhaps (based on anecdotal observation) some in the Reformed wing of the SBC, have heightened views of pastoral authority and leadership and perhaps less appreciation for these very old-fashioned Baptist concepts.
I am not Ed Stetzer or LifeWay. My evidence is anecdotal and observational, not scientific. But it is my belief that the Baptist distinctives of the past are either misunderstood or disfavored among many, especially many younger Southern Baptists today.
The ministry and work of the Spirit is also a key here, though I’m focusing on Baptist distinctives. Many Baptists have a stunted view of the work of the Spirit. We tend to focus on how “It’s up to me.” Failing to appreciate these ancient Baptist distinctives and lacking trust in the convicting and convincing work of the Spirit, we tend to rely on bullying, manipulation, and power politics that look like those in the world.
Definitions
First, I need to define some of these terms. Of course, the truth of these definitions is often in the eye of the beholder.
Soul Competency is the view that each of us is personally accountable to God and need go through no human intermediary to come to God.I am not saved because of my family, my heritage, my upbringing or my involvement or membership in a church. Each of us must, and can, come directly to God through Jesus Christ for salvation. We need no priest, no intermediary, or intercessor except the One seated at God’s right hand. Each of us is also competent, under the guidance of the Spirit, to study the Word and learn of God. We have confessions of faith that state our common beliefs but do not have authoritative creeds as other denominations do.
It does not mean that each of us gets to decide for ourselves what is right, or that truth is subjective. It speaks to the fact that each of us has access to God through Christ and Christians each have the Spirit to empower us to understand the Word.
The Priesthood of Believers is built upon the foundation of soul competency and is the belief that we need no priest or intermediary but Christ. The church is important – crucial – to the sanctification of the believer, but there is no special category of human (clergy) through whom God’s blessing is dispensed. Leaders guide and help, but all the redeemed commune with God, interpret Scripture and minister in Christ’s name.
The OT priest had two primary duties. He engaged in the worship of God. We have the privilege of individually and boldly going before the throne of grace. The priest also interceded for others. As priests, our duty is to bring others to Christ.
This doctrine was perverted to imply that all views were equally valid or that each of us got to choose for ourselves how we would worship God. The priest had the privilege of worshiping God and interceding for others. But he had to do things God’s way. The priesthood of believers is not an excuse for “do as you please” living, but a precious doctrine that reminds us that we can go to God without human intermediaries and we can lead others to him.
Autonomy (and connectionalism) is an ecclesiological outgrowth of these principles. Local churches are autonomous – not under the authority or control of other churches or the denominational structure. We are a convention of “independent Baptist churches.”
- I am a member of an independent Baptist church. We choose to affiliate with the SBC and the BCI. Our church is not a “member” of the SBC. We are “in cooperation” with it.
- The SBC and the BCI are “connectional” – they affiliate and cooperate, but neither is in authority over the other.
- That’s why we send messengers, not delegates to our meetings. My church has no authority over the SBC (and the SBC has none over my church). We send independent messengers from our independent church to our independent convention.
In Real Life
The theoretical ideal does not always materialize. The GCR raised a lot of questions and more than a few hackles concerning the relationship of the SBC to state conventions. At the center of the maelstrom has been NAMB which has restructured the partnership agreements with states and changed pretty much everything about the way independent state conventions and their independent churches relate to the independent convention and its entities.
Here are some of the realities I see in SBC work today.
1) Money Matters.
I arrived in Iowa in 1991 and have been heavily involved in the BCI during that time. – convention president, on the admin committee under all 4 Execs, on the executive board over half of that time. We have been, for most of those years, a Baptist welfare state, funded by YOUR Cooperative Program dollars through HMB and then NAMB. Things have changed recently. Now, NAMB focuses on church planting almost exclusively – that is their new focus and priority. We have to pick up the costs for almost everything else.
This has both placed a greater burden on us and given us a greater freedom.
Here’s the fact: when you take the dollars, you give up some level of control. We had to make systemic and drastic changes in our convention not because of BCI initiative but because NAMB made policy changes. When you take the denominational money, you relinquish some of your autonomy and authority over your own program.
Please hear me. NAMB has been a generous ministry partner with Iowa, and anyone in Iowa who complains about NAMB is bordering on the petulant. They have blessed us with MILLIONS of dollars (tens of millions?) of ministry money through the years. I’m not complaining against NAMB. I’m recognizing the reality. When NAMB gives the money they also set the rules. There is usually some room for negotiation – they are not unreasonable. But they also have their policies and they are only going to bend so far.
If we want to do as we please, we are free to do so. But we cannot drink at the denominational well and then refuse their influence. That is NOT bullying. That is negotiation. It is partnership, give and take. Any effective executive in a new work state needs to know how to work WITH NAMB – standing strong, negotiating hard, but recognizing that we are on the SAME TEAM, not opposite sides.
2) Let’s ditch the cookie cutter.
Having just said that complaining about NAMB was petulant for an Iowan, let me say this. The problem with ANY national organization today seems to be the cookie cutter approach. Southern Baptists seem to love the one-size-fits-all approach. If it worked one place it will work everywhere! I remember when “FAITH” went national. What did people say? “If it worked for Bobby Welch in Daytona Beach it will work for you.” But it didn’t. A lot of churches tried FAITH and almost no one replicated Daytona’s success.
If Southern Baptists had been around in the days of Moses, there would have been a curriculum circulating, “How You Can Find Your Burning Bush.” Moses would have become a popular conference speaker traveling from oasis to oasis sharing his experience and telling people that they can have a similar experience if they just do what he did. This was one of the great lessons I learned from Henry Blackaby.
And here’s the thing – what works in Birmingham, Alabama, or Austin, Texas, isn’t likely to work in Sioux City, Iowa.
- In Drakes Branch, Virginia, (where I pastored in the 80s) drop-in visitation was expected. Here in Sioux City it’s not only not expected but it would be viewed as kind of weird. Why is the pastor at our door?
- “Revivals” are just about unheard of here.
- If you are going to minister here, especially as a “Southern Baptist”, you’d better invest in the community. They tend to think we are snake handlers or holy rollers so ministries like Disaster Relief and World Changers (before they decided to only minister in the Deep South a few years ago) were so important. They gave credibility here.
- The “do a survey, have a block party, start a church” approach hasn’t been all that effective here.
The cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all, we’ve-got-a-system-you-need-to-fit-in approach isn’t going to work. What works in the mountains of Virginia won’t likely work in New York City and a completely different approach is needed in the Heartland.
I am thrilled that NAMB is focusing on church planting. Amen. Hallelujah. Glory. But we need to realize that all strategy needs to be locally appropriate and contextualized. The outlines and policies may be set nationally by our entities, but specific strategies need to be created locally by boots on the ground.
I think that the burden is on new work conventions to devise locally effective plans and perhaps negotiate with our national SBC family and see if they will bend their strategy to be more locally effective. Let’s be willing to scrap the cookie cutter if someone shows that there is something better.
3) Baptists Don’t Bully.
This should probably be two posts – you know I don’t do that! But here’s the point of it all.
If you understand Baptist theology and polity, you do not bully others.
I know there are a few anti-Blackabeans out there (those who have failed to see the amazing wisdom of Henry Blackaby). That is not an unpardonable sin, but it comes close! (If it were not a crusade, I’d use an emoticon.) Henry taught me to trust the Holy Spirit.
If what you are doing is truly of God, the Spirit of God is your ally. He will convince and convict others and you need not pressure, manipulate, or engage in power politics. If what you are doing is NOT of God, do you really want to engage in fleshly tactics to accomplish your own will?
Trust the fact that the God who is at work in you will be at work in others. You need not use the tactics of the secular politician to accomplish the work of God.
- Proclaim the truth.
- Explain what you believe to be right.
- Identify what you believe to be wrong.
- Then trust the Spirit of God to accomplish the work of God in the hearts of the people of God.
What do you do if a group of Baptists does not do what you think they should do even after you have spoken your mind and explained what you think should be done?
- First of all, get used to it. That’s Baptist life.
- Realize that you do NOT have to get your way all the time. You can live a happy, meaningful and spiritually productive life even after you lose that vote!
- Accept that reasonable people can disagree with your viewpoint and approach on a topic.
- Emphathize! Try to see things from the other person’s point of view. Why does this matter to that person? Why does that person feel so strongly about it?
- Reject ALL hidden agendas. All of them. Hidden agendas are of the devil. He sneaks around. God’s people work out in the open without subterfuge, sneakiness, duplicity or artifice.
- Trust the Spirit of God. If you are right and God is on your side, HE will work. If you are wrong, it’s best that you don’t win, right? And if it’s just a matter of opinion, then a spirit-filled Christian will yield to the needs and wants of others, not seek his own.
- Grow up. Maturity means not getting upset when you don’t get your way.
- Focus on the things that really matter. Let’s face it, much of what we fight about isn’t fundamental or crucial. Keep the main thing the main thing and don’t get sidetracked by trying to win piddling battles on minor issues.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: someone can love Jesus, love the Bible, and love the SBC and STILL disagree with you, whether you are an entity head or someone who disagrees with and dissents from an entity. Punishing dissent and disagreement is not only un-Christlike it is un-Baptist.
Trust that the Spirit who has worked in you will work in others. Honor the fact that others don’t have to agree with you. And refuse to bully. Refuse to push people to do what you want. Refuse to publicly humiliate, privately work to pressure or use any other tactics of manipulation to get your way.
It doesn’t honor God and it’s just not Baptist!
If you don’t like this, blame William Thornton. I wrote this post (well, the basis of it) some time ago, after I observed an incident that took place between an entity and a local ministry. I felt that the national entity engaged in tactics that evidenced bullying.
William saw this and encouraged me to work on it. I’d kind of left it in the dustbin.
But I’ve seen several incidences of this. That’s why I write in general terms. This is not just about a particular situation or unfortunate occurrence, but about trends I see in relationships between Christians, between churches, between pastors and people, between state conventions and national entities, etc. It’s unfortunately widespread.
I talked to a friend today who was bullied by powerful people in the SBC. It is sad.
On the other hand, I’ve seen organized efforts to bully and harass entity leaders – despicable efforts based on falsehood and misinformation.
This thing cuts both ways.
We need both an renewed understanding of Baptist polity and we need a restoration of a sound theology of the Holy Spirit to guide us.
Dave, you’re talking to yourself. jussayin
Liberal.
Maybe…three or four posts…and blame me all you want. I’m retired and untouchable.
I’m always curious about a pastor being bullied by our denominational employees. My thinking is that I would not sit still for it.
NAMB, prior to the GCR, was shoehorned into cookie cutter funding for many states, even when decades of such funding showed little or no resuts. No one disputes that NAMB has a right to control their own budget. I am not in an outlying state so i would be curious about how far into church planting details NAMB gets. I think their decision to spend half of their budget on CP is appropriate.
I’d be happy to bash elders in a separate post.
If i were a possible attendee at the Pastor’s Conference, I’d boycott it on account of MacDonald. He should not be featured.
I start posts and they grow, but series very seldom are well received. So, I publish tomes.
I do not plan to give James McDonald a hearing – for a number of reasons.
I agree Mr. Miller – I won’t be giving him an hearing either.
I once favorably reviewed a MacDonald book, and still find it a helpful one. I stopped recommending it, though, after his warp-speed to insanity a few years back.
And I unfortunately commented favorably on his view of wide-open church democracy out of frustration at the time. It is a view that I was wrong about then, and deeply regret now. In my own defense, I have nothing to say about it other than that I was foolish and frustrated and young. I am no longer quite so young.
Really good post! I especially like the bullet points at the end that serve as an excellent summary. And the fact that you didn’t get Stetzer to supply statistics but just went with anecdotes. NOT that there is anything wrong with getting statistics!
Seriously now, Letting God control the situation and not trying to force our wills on others is just good common, Godly, sense. And this comes from a pro-elder, reformed Baptist (for some 25 years now) who really does love the fact that we have a Cooperative program. It will always need tweaks, reforms, and re-directions; Because its staffed by humans.
For the most part, I agree with these observations with the author’s caveat that they are not scientific but merely anecdotal.
Yet, it is the anecdotal aspect connected to broad sweeping conclusions that are problematic for me. This tends to put an arbitrary name on a problem and then proscribe a subjective cure.
One example would be: “””“If it worked for Bobby Welch in Daytona Beach it will work for you.” But it didn’t. A lot of churches tried FAITH and almost no one replicated Daytona’s success.”””
FAITH worked for Bobby Welch because Bobby Welch had a deep, abiding faith. I guess if more of us had the opportunity to wake up in a body bag in Viet Nam, we would probably have more passion than we do for whatever program we choose to participate in through the church.
I hear this same comment, and veiled criticism, in regard to Rick Warren, and the recently departed Robert Schuller. In these cases, and many others, individuals had great success with their programs that others did not. Yet, I don’t think the problem was with a particular approach–even as a cookie cutter approach.
The problem is not with the cookie cutter, but with the dough. I say that not as a blanket criticism of others, but as a personal confession.
What fails to get transferred in any “program” is the passion of the one who instituted the program. This is true in business as well as religion. I’ve been involved in many “franchise type” businesses that are “cookie cutter” programs. Some used them and had great success; others, not so much.
I think nearly any plan that has succeeded for one will succeed for many others if the “dough” contains heaping helpings of the passion behind the program.
The post contains many generalizations in regard to many issues. The truth will lie somewhere in the responses and discussion. There is a lot to consider here.
I couldn’t disagree with your cookie cutter approach more.
Our God gifts and uses us individually. He does not produce Bobby Welch clones or Johnny Hunt clones or Rick Warren clones.
I don’t resent those men but I also realized God didn’t construct me like them. Perhaps you are right and I simply lack the love for Jesus and passion for the kingdom I need to be more like Bobby Welch, but I don’t think so.
I’m gonna be content with being myself and seeking to be more like Jesus, not trying to be forced into anyone’s mold except the one who died for me.
I’m so sick of the “if you were more spiritual (passionate, trained, committed, whatever) you could be like ******” approach. I’ve had that up to here, Jack.
If it works for you, you can have it!
I am too – it’s like there’s a new “church growth guru” movement afoot these days (or maybe it’s not new it all) that says to us (and I’m afraid many pastors say it to themselves) “if we could just be like …… Or have the obvious spirituality and godliness of…… Then we be golden because who God called us to be and the indwelling Spirit at work within us is not enough.”
“””Perhaps you are right and I simply lack the love for Jesus and passion for the kingdom I need to be more like Bobby Welch, but I don’t think so.”””
If this is what you gathered from my post I am extremely sorry. It never even crossed my mind.
I obviously did not communicate what I wanted because your response is exactly what I did not mean.
As far as “just being you,” I agree with that as well. What I meant to say was that “there is nothing new under the sun.” We are all indebted to others who blazed trails before us, and upon the shoulders of which we stand.
I do not wish to suggest that you believe this or that you should believe this, but that is my perspective.
You are free to twist my words to justify your anger and vitriol, but your take on it is not what I intended and I never would suggest that you–or anyone else–are not deeply spiritual and committed men of God.
Again, I am extremely sorry for misspeaking so erringly. Your conclusions were never in my mind.
Please accept my deepest apologies.
Not sure whether this is an apology or an accusation. You both ask forgiveness and accuse me of vitriol, so I guess I will ask for clarification. Are you asking for forgiveness or accusing me of being vitriolic? I’m a little confused.
How did I misunderstand this paragraph?
‘I think nearly any plan that has succeeded for one will succeed for many others if the “dough” contains heaping helpings of the passion behind the program.’
It certainly seems that you are saying that if the program that worked for one doesn’t work for the other the problem is with the person that it didn’t work for. If I am misinterpreting that, I’d certainly be open to instruction.
I am not vitriolic, though I completely, utterly and passionately reject the cookie cutter approach on principle.
Dave,
You seemed disgusted and angry. That is what I was referring to.
I apologized. I won’t beg for your forgiveness or approval. You can be your own judge of your own heart.
The paragraph you referenced was actually agreeing with your view of a “cookie cutter” program, but from another angle.
I already said I did not put it very well, and I can see where you (or anyone else) could have easily and logically made the conclusions you did.
I know what was in my heart and what I did or did not feel about anybody’s spirituality.
I am not going to seek to clarify anymore than I have because I don’t want to risk offending you or anyone any further.
As you said, “I have had it up to here.” I am truly sorry for offending you. Whether or not you parse that to be an accusation or not, I have no control over.
Let me say, I have the utmost respect for you and the work you do to create a lively discussion. I hope that is clear enough.
May God continue to bless your contribution, and may you experience a great day of worship tomorrow.
Jack,
you said theses two:
“You are free to twist my words to justify your anger and vitriol, but your take on it is not what I intended and I never would suggest that you–or anyone else–are not deeply spiritual and committed men of God.”
“I already said I did not put it very well, and I can see where you (or anyone else) could have easily and logically made the conclusions you did.”
Dave said: “Not sure whether this is an apology or an accusation.”
If you did not put it well, and could see how one could have easily and logically get you wrong, then why would you bother mention the thought that they were free to twist your words? Rather why not just assume that they got the wrong message because you were not properly clear?
Just saying…
Peace brothers,
mike
“I’m gonna be content with being myself and seeking to be more like Jesus, not trying to be forced into anyone’s mold except the one who died for me.” -Dave Miller
This one statement captures the heart of bully-copy-cat-ism. It is very threatening to the insecure rubber-stampers who have yet to trust the Holy Spirit for local “programming” and practice. Indigenous is hard to spell, much less practice.
It reflects a visionary end-result that doesn’t ignore Baptist and their “distinctive’s”, but it puts them wisely behind Christ likeness, and thus frightens away any and all who may need a bully badge for perceived power and authority.
It strips away the bully pulpit in favor of a platform of free grace. It de-couples the super heroes from their groupies. It reminds the “one size fits all” Super Program not to be too discouraged when it does not, and to arrange itself accordingly.
It rings true, especially to Millennial’s, who are much more interested in this brand of open honesty than “what Baptists believe.” “Christian” distinctive’s in no way dilutes what Baptist’s hold as truth for practice.
I believe it is how all churches can NOT hold “revival meetings”, and never miss it.
This is when Baptists proudly fly their flag under and not over the flag of Christ himself. No mean to be seen.
Thanks Dave.
NOTE: I made some tweaks to the post as a result of some clarifications that were brought to me about the funding relationships between NAMB and the state conventions.
I would make this statement as well – which I eliminated from my post as an edit because it was just too long.
I think many of the changes we were forced to make as a result of policy changes at the national level will end up, perhaps, being good for us in the long run. My concern was examining the process, but I think the outcome, in the long run, will be good.
I think many of the state and association level changes happening due to the NAMB shifts will turn out better in the long run, as we see people find methods and structures that work where they are.
I hope we see NAMB also benefit. I do wonder if the laser-focus on church planting in (almost exclusively) 31 cities in North America will result in churches beginning to see NAMB as less relevant. While NAMB will end up effective due to focus, will more churches and people see better-rounded ministry from states and re-invigorated associations and therefore build stronger ties through them?
That’ll be a PhD project for the next generation, I suppose.
Great post!
Dave, I am sure glad you opened with the caveat: “Well, that’s the ideal anyway.” Pray tell me how James McDonald was a speaker at the pastors conference? I mean, if he is gonna call congregational church govt. satanic, he must have rocks in his clock. Because we have congregational church government, Southern Baptists were able to resist the blandishments and raw force of the liberal (really skeptical) understanding of Scripture.
I spent 6 years doing research in church history, especially Baptist church history, and I did a special study of the meaning of ekklesia. Got news for McDonald: It is obvious that he never studied Baptist History or the Background for Ekklesia and Qahal (the Hebrew term translated Ekklesia by the LXX) (or did he notice that little fact?). Besides we have so many uses of ekklesia in the NT along with clear cut examples of how it functions (both secular and sacred) that there should be no questioning of the matter. Besides, even Dr. Mohler emphasized the fact that Baptists were congregational in church government. And if there is any question about the matter of the rule of eldership, Peter makes it plain in I Pet.5, example, humility, and not being lords (bosses) over the Lord’s heritage. McDonald could do with a good dose of Epsom salts with even a study of Intercommunion by J.R. Graves, much as I care not for the Landmarkism view. However, to render credit where credit is due, I would point out that Karl Schmidt’s article on Ekklesia in TWNT is woefully lacking in understanding, because he never saw Graves’ exegesis and exposition of Acts 19. There the latter makes it plain that there is a difference between Ochlos and Ekklesia, the first being the mob that rushed into the meeting place of the Ekklesia and the second being distinct from the first and the body that would have to answer to the Roman government for the conduct of the disorderly mob. Tsk! McDonald is really wanting, and one wonders why he was speaking at an august pastors’ conference in the first place.
I joined an SBC church precisely because the SBC has the best balance in my opinion between congregational autonomy and accountability. But it is a balance that needs to be maintained.
I do want to add one thing to your last bullet point list:
If you don’t get your way, don’t immediately assume that whoever didn’t let you get your way has a hidden agenda.
In fact, I distrust anyone who immediately assumes the worst motives out of anyone who disagrees with them. The reason I distrust them is because while they may have good motives for moving to serious accusation short of having all the facts, they are at least blind to how destructive that pattern is and they don’t see how it can be used to bully others. It’s an all-too-common pattern that simply needs to stop among fellow believers. There are legitimate enemies to the Church that need our discerning attention without false accusations confusing the issues.
Dear Jim: I immediately assume that the person, who tells me not to assume that everyone has a hidden agenda, has a hidden agenda/
I deny all hidden agendas I’m accused of, especially the ones I really have.
My, dear Jim, such humility.
I have secret reasons for not responding.
Dear Dave: I really like this posting of yours. The idea that leaders must manipulate people is truly repulsive to the Baptist way, the biblical way. One of the problems most Baptists have is that of realizing that simple, affectionate, clear setting forth of teachings, views, etc., with some sense of preparing the people for what follows or what is involved, is as much a part of the biblical teaching and lifestyle as anything can be. One of the truths I have learned, one that I had a hard time grasping, is that Sovereign Grace is really the theology that is inviting and that calls for accountability in this life and out of it. One of the intellectual historians of American Puritanism (I forget which) said that the Puritans were some of the most responsible people the world has ever seen (rough paraphrase, but pretty close). Dr. Truett summed it up well at the Spurgeon Centenary in 1934, “Calvinism presses down on the brow of man the crown of responsibility.” And Dr. John Eusden caught the essence of it, when he stated in his Intro. to his translation of William Ames’ Marrow of Divinity (the first textbook in theology used at Harvard University in the 1600s): “Predestination is an invitation to begin one’s spiritual pilgrimage,….” I came to the conclusion that Eusden’s idea is applicable to every one of the five points or doctrines of the TULIP acrostic and to reprobation as well. When I examined the Bible with such an idea in mind, I found our Lord leading the way in presenting such truths as reasons for coming to Him, as invitations, as winsome truths, designed to draw people to God, therapeutic paradoxes. This is the theological substance that permeates the whole of society for the image of America being a city set on a hill.
There are forces at work to turn these truths into excuses for setting down and doing nothing, but when we look at the origins of American liberties and the Great Century of Missions we find these doctrines to be the springs, the fountains of refreshing, life-giving truths that enable and empower fallen sinners to become responsible and creative servants of God.
This is a fantastic post Dave. I am going to have to read it two or there times to really get the flavor of it. My own meditation on things seem to suggest that the “way” to do things is not as important as to the love and passion behind them with the focus of bringing Jesus glory in all things. The best expression of church is not in a thousand seat auditorium listening to the exposition of an Apollos, but in that smaller auditorium where disciples are prepared to go make other disciples, and then they are prepared to be set to the wind to start other churches in other places to begin the process of multiplication and discipleship making all over again. The wisdom and vision of the Church is found in the Head of the Church, as well as the His collection of Priests = not in the Senior Pastor and His staff. This is why I truly cringe at the harbinger of mega-churches and the overwhelming revolt from congregational polity. It is harped ad nauseum from proponents of the mega church and reformed model that “growth” will not go beyond 300 people until the congregational model is put to pasture. What none of these nobles want to contemplate is this thought: Perhaps the local church is not to go beyond the three hundred number in one place = perhaps at that point it should multiply into another church = not a satellite (how I think that model is an affront to Christ and His church) but an honest to goodness new church. What I truly believe is this = once the model of congregational leadership is handed to the Pastoral staff or an oligarchy of “elders” or “leadership teams” then that church will be limited to the collective wisdom of it’s leaders = and that is a bad thing IMHO.
Congregational (Committee) leadership can be wonderful one year and disastrous the next. What I experience and hear about most often is the proliferation of committee members who know Roberts Rules of Order and quote it with passion but struggle to remember one full sentence of Jesus teachings. Given that most committee members are quite passive and merely a body present for voting on the view and preference of the loudest voice in the room—we get what we organize for.
Also, I worked in home missions for many years. I always held my breath each year as the young, impressionable pastors would ship off to the Mother Ship (big church with all the resources and “how-to-do-church”book)
Too many would come back breathing fire on the Deacons and committees, wreaking havoc and splitting the churches wide open over whether the men should shave Saturday night or Sunday morning.
I lean towards the Elder model, if for no other reason than the greater potential for wisdom, maturity and mutual accountability is there.
Fewer “clueless” people have an untimely, carnal voice for a spiritual need.
Vance Havner said it best, “A committee is the unqualified, nominated by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.”
Suffice it to say that bullies, whether in a committee or behind a pulpit, always meet their match where He who loves His church is concerned.
You have a very tainted, negative view towards congregational polity it seems. Gained by your experience. I am not one to downplay your experience. It is yours. What I am saddened by is by this attitude that a small group of “elders” would have anymore wisdom and maturity than a group of “clueless…carnal” followers. Since elders are chosen from the larger group (that is if we go by the Biblical, Scriptural admonition) then pray tell where will we get those mature individuals from the ignorant masses? My friend you harbor a very weak and condescending spirit toward your fellow Christ followers = those who are so ignorant and carnal that they do not know what is up or down. Whose responsibility is it to disciple and help bring to maturity these dear ones in the Body of Christ? The same fellows who it seems look down upon them in scorn and derision? Who is the Master and who is the servant? I am so happy to serve Him who bought even the most cantankerous of my membership and brought them for me to love and discipline in the fold for His glory. As the Lord Jesus said, “…those who will be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven will be the servant of all.”
Rob
I truly believe that most of our Deacons qualify as Elders and at the same time others became a Deacon because the Nominating Committee, chaired by Thelma Fillaspot thought he was handsome and charming. Many pastors inherit generations of this kind of “leadership”.
If the qualifications for serving on a committee in the name of Democracy and free-participation are lowed far enough, then anyone qualifies. Paul certainly spoke to this in the Corinthian Church. 3
The writer of Hebrews knew of this frustration. 5&6
We know the qualifications for Deacon and Elder, but we have to make our own design for the office of Committee.
Rob, the scorn and derision you speak of comes, not because they or I are at times carnal, rather when they or I fill a role of spiritual need from a fleshly motive and operation. I am entirely capable of this and can teach a 6 week course on “how to.”
Cantankerous (who thought that word up), I am sure describes me at times, so I am reminded to be graceful to others as you speak. This includes my prayer that they not get on that committee just yet.
What I need most in leadership ministry is wisdom and accountability. I want and choose a vetted Elder every time, regardless of any committee he may serve on.
Thank you for your firmness. If and when I am weak and condescending toward my congregation, I need this and more. (we will bring this up in our next committee meeting 4 months from now. The chair has to be away)
The problem with “elder” rule my dear friend is that there are a limited number of chairs whereas I have many more that are being discipled to bear leadership positions. There is need for discernment among teachers and Pastors = not all are ready for the next level of maturity. And yet my heartfelt desire is that all of God’s people be a part of His Body the church, and dependent upon their maturity in love and grace be allowed to be a part of the work of the Body. This is the problem in mega-churches it seems to me. Senior leadership is far removed from the nuts and bolts work of discipleship, leaving it to younger staff who may be as just as immature as those of whom they are charged = being assumed that a seminary degree will automatically get one into level one maturity and discernment best left to those who are mature and discerning. And when it comes to helping be a part of leadership in such situations, in the main it is left to those who either by cronyism or by the fact of “whom you know” gets one in leadership positions. As Dave said, either system can be fraught with carnality = but the greater wisdom is not with only a few counselors but with the “multitude” of counselors as Scripture says = worts and all.
Rob
Who gets to work in the pit crew for Jeff Gordon?
Who gets to be on a team that prepares the meal for the President?
Who gets to be on the surgical team that operates on you and me?
Who gets to be on the flight crew that prepares the airplane you and I will fly on?
Who gets to work on the construction crew for the World trade Center?
Who gets to serve as a deacon on a team of deacon servants?
Who gets to preach and teach the Word as an elder?
Who gets to be on the team that counts the offering each week?
Who is the blessed person who gets to maintain the church building facilities from week to week?
Ask the Levites who gets to make music for God himself?
Who set the standards for all of these professions?
Who says when one is now “ready”?
“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” – Ephesians 4:11-13 NASB. You really wanted the answer here did you? As to the answer of “when they are ready” it is the Body that determines that and calls Pastors, Elders, and Deacons for service as they do everybody else in leadership (See the example of Acts 6:2-4).
Rob
The problem in churches is not generally the FORM of government but the spiritual maturity and commitment of those governing and those being governed.
An elder-ruled or elder-led church with self-centered and power-hungry elders will be a disaster (plenty of examples of that).
A congregational church with a carnal, selfish, biblically ignorant congregation will be a disaster.
We always think that the fix is in the structure, the policies and the procedures. It almost NEVER is.
Seems to me that every time Jesus was presented with an authority-structure question (mostly of the “You’re going to put *ME* *high* in the hierarchy, aren’t you?” type), He responded with an answer about the attitude one should use in exercising authority. Having structure correct may be important, but it’s not at all the most important – getting the attitude right is.
Changing structure is easier than changing attitudes, so that’s what we tend to go for.
DAVE,
This response is why you are the master. You probably already know just how many words it would have taken me to say what you just expressed. Now I have to practice in my response to Rob.
Not sure if it fits in here, but I find II Cor 12:6 to be instructive: “For if I want to boast, I will not be a fool, because I will be telling the truth. But I will spare you, so that no one can credit me with something beyond what he sees in me or hears from me” (emphasis mine). Paul had a wealth of spiritual experience, and could have easily bolstered his reputation and authority by talking it up (or, as he refers to it, “boasting”). But apparently, his normal mode of operation was to allow people to instead watch what he does, and listen to what he says, and evaluate him from that. He only started talking up his experiences because the actions of the “superapostles” forced him to it, and he evidently does it reluctantly.
It just seems to me that someone who normally operates this way, letting people watch oneself and evaluate oneself for themselves, rather than trying to “market” one’s reputation by boasting of one’s spiritual experiences, isn’t likely to move into bullying in other areas. The attitudes don’t go together.
Well said, Ben!
Gentlemen, brethren, while there are Baptist churches with elder government, it is not a biblical practice. Our Lord made it very clear in Mt. 18 that the final authority on earth is the local congregation: “Tell it to the church”(Mt.18:17), Failure to hear the body of Christ – note, not the eldership, is the breaking point. And Peter makes the statement that elders are not to act as lords over God’s heritage but as ensamples to the flock (I Pet.5:3). Even when Peter calls on the younger to be subject to the elder, he immediately adds, “all of you be subject one to another.”(I Pet.5:5). Humility is the necessary ingredient; arrogance is the failure to understand the place of ministry in the church, and the ekklesia is a body in which every member has a part, a right to participate, a right to speak (in orderly fashion and with due respect to others). It is ascribed to the Historian, Goen, that 200 Congregational churches became Baptist during the period of the awakenings. A friend of mine preached in one of those churches some 50 years or so ago. If you folks would study how people like John Robinson and others became Congregationalists in church government, you might appreciate better the case that the Baptists have had. Archbishops, Cardinals, Popes, in short, the hierarchy, does not exist, and the eldership is a group of ministers who govern by example and whose authority is spiritual. If the authority of the minister or ministers is consonant with the word of God and is rejected, God Himself will intervene. I have seen this in the more than half century that I have been a member of, and a minister for twenty eight years of, Baptist churches. The decline from congregational church government followed after the first century, and it took some 400+ years before we began to have a pope who usurped authority over the churches. Even then there were those churches and bishops who opposed such usurpation. The Presbyterians are good people and I have a goodly number of their works, but their church government lent to the development of the so-called liberal (read skeptical) cause and consequent departure from the faith.
Perhaps it is the “single” Elder congregation that is not a biblical practice?
What is the first thing a church does when they “hire” the new “Preacher”?
They give him the Elder key set. He becomes, in effect, the only Elder, Bishop, Presbytery. If he is young and in need of affirmation, this can be both exciting and dangerous. If he is more experienced, he will know how to divvy-up those keys before he slips on the ring and says “I do” to the that congregation.
I don’t want to confuse Priesthood of the Believer with Everybody Vote on Everything. Neither do I believe that Pastors/Elders may claim Ex Cathedra and gang up on the minions without forfeiting their leadership role.
Simple words like Elder or Congregationalists fail to enrich all the dynamics that either spoil the goods or bring life to any congregation. Either can be carried out in a biblical, or fleshly fashion.
“We always think that the fix is in the structure, the policies and the procedures. It almost NEVER is.” Dave
The Church and its government is a cyclical, if not a perpetual expression of all the dynamics found in Ephesians 4. Each generation must form their spiritual, not political, application and live with their choices or modify them accordingly.
Neither Congregational nor Elder form seems to work well today where many churches choose to operate more like a Wall Mart.
The Walmart Mission Statement is:
“to help people save money so they can live better.”
Way back in the early 90’s, Sam Walton pined:
“become a $125 billion company by the year 2000”
What he really meant was, never mind just how distorted the economy becomes, and just how many mom-pops drop off the planet, we will dominate.
I wonder– Do Mega-church pastors hearts beat in sync with old Sam!?
— Do the new wanna-be’s willingly abandon truth as they chase after the new and improved business model?
Never mind how liberal we become and who cares about all those little churches with no TV ministry complete with power band–killer light ministry–and a grinning talk show host couple at the top of their game in the role of pastor or elder.
In their world, the bullies face little resistance. Everyone is too busy thinking positive thoughts and waiting for their miracle breakthrough$
It seems to me that today’s deacon boards fulfill the function of elders in part. In this way we’ve combined deacons and elders. I don’t think it’s the model that best reflects the admonitions in the scriptures, but it usually gets the job done. I also don’t think “elder rule” is the best characterization of the scriptures. The word “rule” has a totalitarian connotation that is unbiblical.
The pastor-deacon model looks like the CEO-Board of Directors model. The “bishop” (senior pastor)-elder-deacon model looks more like a president-senate-house model, or perhaps executive-judicial-legislative. I don’t think either one perfectly correlates to it, but when done correctly it provides necessary points of accountability for elders as well as deacons.
And we shouldn’t despise accountability. In church polity I t’s useful for building trust among the corporate, local Body of Christ. Haven’t we seen pastors who without warrant were drummed out of their churches by unchecked deacons? Haven’t we seen new pastors all but destroy churches by making unilateral changes without the wisdom of fellow elders? Can things still go wrong with this model? Sure. Just look at Mark Driscoll’s recent meltdown. He had fellow elders that he was allowed to bully and effectually came up with a monarchy in his mega-multi-site church kingdom. So the solution isn’t in the system as much as it is the spiritual condition of the church and her leaders, as some commenting have already pointed out.
“So the solution isn’t in the system as much as it is the spiritual condition of the church and her leaders, as some commenting have already pointed out.”
Amen Jim.
Dave Miller you wrote an excellent post and I think several of your initial posts were overlooked in he discussion about elder led verses congregational led. However, the points about Soul Competency, Priesthood of the Believer and Autonomy are important and deserve further comment. Regarding Soul Competency and the Priesthood of the Believer – these are the key ingredients which have historically made Baptists a people of the Book, the Bible. On the scale of things regarding the laity’s ability to read and interpret scripture there are two ends of the spectrum. On one end is the Roman Catholic Church where the Pope along with the bishops proclaim all interpretation of scripture and the local priests (and their parishioners) are obligated to follow in order to be in communion. The result of this historically has been a laity which has little engagement with the Scriptures on their own (although there is increasing Bible study among some Catholic churches) and therefore the church members have less conviction about what their leaders are telling them. Over the centuries, the leadership has discouraged the laity from having access to the Bible because the leadership desired to have complete control over the interpretation of scripture.
The other end of the spectrum is the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) where, like the Southern church called the Churches of Christ, they say they have no creeds but the Bible and everyone is free to interpret scripture as they so choose and there is no doctrinal statement like the Baptist Faith and Message to provide a framework for doctrine. At the present time, the Disciples of Christ are in decline like the rest of the mainline denominations.
The Southern Baptist Convention and Baptists historically have fallen between these two ends of the spectrum and have strongly encouraged the laity to engage the scriptures while having the Baptist Faith and Message to set the parameters for the essential matters of belief.
As far as the Autonomy of the local congregation, this can now be seen as a strength as there are many congregations of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. and the The Episcopal Church U.S.A. who are attempting to leave their respective denominations because of liberal doctrine but are prohibited from doing so because the denomination claims to own their real estate. I have read of a congregation in the Bay area which had to pay almost $9 million to leave the S.F. Presbytery and still keep their extensive (and expensive) real estate holdings. The pastor and his wife were so committed to leaving the PCUSA that they sold their own home and contributed that money to help cover the $9 million.
In the S.B.C. this scenario will never be a reality and if a local congregation feels uncomfortable with the direction of the Convention, they are free to leave without financial consequences. By the same token, if a local association is concerned about the doctrine of one of their member churches, they can vote them out, but the initiative for such action comes from the local level.
Over the course of time, it is evident that the S.B.C.’s model of soul competency and Priesthood of the Believer has led to the members actively engaging Scripture with the end result of growing disciples. Having a hierarchy giving proclamations form on high doesn’t produce this result.
I like your comment. Sometimes, the real does not match the ideal, but thank you.