William Thornton is the SBC Plodder.
The list of largest churches in the SBC include just nine with reported weekly attendance over 10,000. My curiosity over just how Southern Baptist these churches really are led me to their public information. Most interesting was Village Church, ninth on the list and a church that has their constitution and by-laws on their website.
The SBC at the national level has on occasion kicked out (or taken action to “cease their relationship” if you are picky about the language) churches for being too homosexual friendly and the basis for that action has been the Baptist Faith and Message Statement.
So, I ask a hypothetical question: If a church is found to be non-compliant with the BFM in other areas, should not they too be excised from our convention for the sake of doctrinal consistency?
Just asking. Not suggesting.
The Village Church, Flower Mound, Texas (legal name: First Baptist Church of Highland Village) looks in their legal documents to be a true elder ruled church, and, seems to me, is a church that is non-compliant with the BFM.
Article VI of the BFM:
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.
Village Church constitution:
The overall policy, control, direction and management of the ministry, operations and finances of the church shall be vested in the elder body. The elders are designated as the directors of this corporation as the term is defined and used in the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Act. Subject to the provisions and limitations of the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Act, any limitations in the Articles of Incorporation, this constitution and the church’s bylaws, all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the elders.
Village Church by-laws:
The elders shall have the sole authority to appoint new elders. A man shall be appointed as an elder by a passing vote of the elder body after he has been tested and proven to meet the qualifications stated herein.
The members of the church will be allowed to raise concerns, in accordance with Article 2.01.d herein, before any prospective elder is confirmed. However, confirmation of the elder will be at the final discretion of the elders. The elders may appoint a committee or group to vet qualified elder candidates to the elders. The elders may also receive recommendations for elder candidates from the Covenant Members.
If the BFM calls for congregational governance (“democratic processes”), and I am unaware of any who say that it does not, is another form of governance something that should be examined?
If the wording of the BFM was deliberately phrased so as to be able to accommodate elder ruled churches, and I cannot quite see how, then perhaps our denominational doctrinal gurus could just say so.
I suppose one could stretch the wording to a ridiculous extreme and say that Village Church’s elders operate through “democratic processes” since they (elders only) do vote democratically among themselves, each of the elders having a vote, very democratic. However, I do not see how one could squeeze the congregation into that process.
If one maintains that the congregation voted to give all authority to elders, and at some point in the past one presumes that they did and thus was both democratic and BFM compliant, then the same could be said about the congregation voting for any form of non-congregational governance, say, voting to anoint the senior pastor as King or to rename the church Presbyterian or something similar.
This is a question that is often discussed among the blogs and now Frank Page has this informal Calvinism study group meeting in order to help us achieve some comity over the Calvinist/Traditionalist conflicts. The area of elder governance, elder rule, is an issue that surely, surely, this group has discussed. Unfortunately, their discussions are all on background so we do not get to hear the best minds and the key people around the convention speaking on this important issue.
I might suggest, not on background but right out in the open, this:
“My Calvinist colleagues and friends, Here is an elder ruled SBC congregation. Is this a church that is clearly not in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message Statement?”
“Why or why not?”
“If so, what, if anything, should be done about it?”
I have no quarrel with this particular church and don’t get too exercised over how a church chooses to govern itself. Churches may arrange their governance as they see fit and I am, now as always, happy to rejoice where Christ is preached.
It is a salient question to be examined, though, and certainly worthwhile for church laymen to understand. I’d recommend that any church where the word “elder” is raised by a new or prospective pastor check out what elder rule did to this church.
Umm…would the trustees found in the typical church charter that effectively control the typical church physical plant and often perform duties such as signing checks disqualify that church in a similar fashion?
I will note that FBCHV was organized congregationally when I was a member there as far as I can recall (I researched this previously out of curiosity). The change was made after Chandler was pastor.
I’d say that that Church was not operating by Baptist ecclesiology, if their congregation votes on nothing. And, from what you wrote, it sounds like the Church body votes on nothing….that everything is decided by the Elders. That is definitely not in accordance with the BFM2K.
David
But does that make them “not in friendly cooperation” on the same basis as a church that appears to be gay friendly, as our friend William has asked?
This article is informative and exegetically substantiated. I beleive it contributes effectively to this discussion and offer it accordingly in hope that it brings ‘light’ not ‘heat’ to this deliberation.
Who Should Run the Church? A Case for the Plurality of Elders
By Daniel B. Wallace
Many churches today have a pastor and several deacons. This is based on a model of ecclesiology in which it is assumed that there was one elder in the ancient church. But even those churches that have more than one elder (the pastor being one of them) usually regard the pastor as the de facto head of the church. This is due to two basic reasons:
(1) he is the one with biblical training, and
(2) he is the one who speaks before the entire congregation every Sunday.
It seems to me that this model (either the philosophical single-elder model or the pragmatic single-leader model) misses the mark of the New Testament teaching on this topic. The early church had, I believe, multiple elders. The pastor would have been counted among them, but was not over them. Indeed, all would have taught, not just one. If we can get back to this model, I think that churches will be stronger in many ways. They will be less idiosyncratic, less dependent on one person,1 more accountable.
The case for plurality of elders can be argued along four lines: biblical, historical, theological, and pragmatic. At bottom, I would say that the reason the scriptures teach multiple eldership is at least twofold: (1) mutual accountability is necessary if leaders are to avoid falling into sin; and (2) a church takes on the personality of its leader/s: if there is just one leader, the church will inevitably take on that man’s personality, including his quirks and faults. But if more than one person leads the church, there is the greater chance that the church will be balanced.2
I. Biblical Arguments
A. For Multiple Elders
The argument from scripture is in fact so strong that most commentators today assume it. But it is well-articulated in G. W. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 175-77 (the section called “Excursus: Bishops/Presbyters and Deacons: 3:1-13”).
The following points are relevant for our discussion:
(1) Presbyters (also translated “elders”) and bishops (also translated “overseers”) were apparently the same individuals. That is to say, the two terms were synonymous.
Note, for example, Titus 1:5 (“appoint elders”), followed by v. 7 (“for a bishop must be blameless”). The very fact that the sentence in v. 7 begins with a “for” shows a connection: bishops are elders. Otherwise, why would Paul mention the qualifications of a group that were not whom Titus should appoint? In Acts 20:17 Paul calls the “elders of the church” of Ephesus together for a final meeting. Then, in v. 28 he addresses them as “overseers” (or bishops). Thus, any passage that deals with bishop is equally applicable to elders.
(2) The leadership of the church from the earliest period always had elders, even if it did not have deacons. Young churches only had elders; more mature churches had both elders and deacons.
This can be seen by a comparison of Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Tim 3:1-13: the Christians in Crete (where Titus was ministering) were relatively new. The qualifications for deacon is not mentioned because only the top level of leadership needed to be established in such a situation. But in Ephesus the church was well established (where Timothy was ministering). Consequently, Paul not only gives instruction to Timothy about both elders and deacons, but also says that the leaders should not be recent converts (cf. 1 Tim 3:6 [for elders] and perhaps implied in 3:10 for deacons). But no instruction is given to Titus about new converts because that was the only pool from which he could draw.3 Thus, for young (and presumably small) churches, the leaders would do the work of both elders and deacons.4
In sum, a church must have elders, but not necessarily deacons (at least at first).
(3) Elder and pastor are not the same thing in the NT. “Elder” refers to the office one holds by virtue of appointment or election; “pastor” is a spiritual gift that one is given by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:7-11). One can have the gift of pastor without being an elder; and one can hold the office of elder without having the gift of pastor.
(4) For elders, the one qualification that is other than moral is the ability to teach. Note 1 Tim 3:2 (“able to teach” [didavktiko”, didaktikos]). Titus 1:9 expands on this: “he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.”
There is much confusion about what this means.
• This does not mean that an elder must have the gift of teaching, for the NT is very clear that all believers should be able to teach. Cf. Heb 5:12 (the definition of a spiritual meat-eater is one who is able to teach [5:11-14]; the author indicts his entire audience for not yet being able to do this); Col 3:16; Titus 2:3.5
• “Able to teach” does not mean seminary-trained or one skilled in the biblical languages. This is evident from the fact that Gentile Christians were among the first elders (cf. Titus 1:5-9). These men would not have known Hebrew.
• It is recognized that some elders would be gifted as teachers and would especially exercise this gift (1 Tim 5:17). Thus, the implication is that not all would teach equally. (Personally, I see in this text justification for some of the elders to be pastor-teachers. Further, those especially gifted in this area would want to hone such a gift by learning the scriptures as diligently and rigorously as they could. Hence, there is justification for having seminary-trained teachers. But, at the same time, it is evident that not all elders had this gift.)
• The basic thrust of this qualification is that elders would hold to pure doctrine in guiding the church. In other words, they would be mature men who could sniff out heresy and steer the church in the direction it needs to go. Certainly in some especially delicate matters these leaders would defer to others who had the gift. But the elders needed to make the final decisions about the direction of the church.
Pragmatically, one of the ways in which such teaching could be accomplished would be for the elders to oversee different home Bible studies. Nowadays “mini-churches” are very popular. Such mini-churches are actually very biblical. The early church met in homes during the week. Each home would presumably have its own elder. Thus, at least in the context of a small gathering, the elders should be prepared to teach.
Teaching also occurs in another, less visible context. When the elders and pastor meet together, the elders should have the freedom to state their opinions freely. To be sure, the pastor is usually better trained in the scriptures, but this in no way gives him the right to demand allegiance to his viewpoints. He must demonstrate that his views are biblical and submit them to the leadership. At times, his case will not convince. (Each one of us is responsible to know the scriptures and to examine the evidence for our beliefs.) Further, many if not most issues to be decided by an elder board allow for a great deal of flexibility. Two positions could equally be in line with scripture. At that point, the collective wisdom of the leadership needs to reign supreme.6
(5) The consistent pattern in the NT is that every church had several elders.
Note the following texts (where either elder or bishop is used):
• Acts 11:30–elders at the church of Antioch
• Acts 14:23–Paul and Barnabas appoint “elders in every church”
• Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4–elders at the church in Jerusalem
• Acts 20:17, 28–elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus (v. 17–“elders of the church”)
• Acts 21:18–elders at the church in Jerusalem
• Phil 1:1–the church at Philippi has bishops and deacons
• 1 Tim 5:17–elders at the church of Ephesus
• Titus 1:5–Titus is to appoint elders in every town7
• Jas 5:14–“the elders of the church”
• 1 Pet 5:1-2–“the elders among you”8
In every one of these texts the plain implication is that each church had several elders.
Note also that other more generic terms are also used of church leaders. The pattern once again is that there are several leaders for each church:
• 1 Thess 5:12, 13–the congregation is to respect its leaders9
• Heb 13:7, 17–heed the leaders of the church, “for they are keeping watch over your souls” (v. 17)10
The evidence is overwhelming. So strong is it that Knight, after carefully evaluating the evidence, can argue:
An analysis of the data seems, therefore, to indicate the existence of oversight by a plurality of church leaders throughout the NT church in virtually every known area and acknowledged or commended by virtually every NT writer who writes about church leadership. . . . [For example,] Every church in which leadership is referred to in Asia Minor either under Paul and his associates or under Peter’s ministry has a plurality of leadership . . .11
B. For Single Elders
If the case is this strong, why then do some argue for a single elder? The basic argument for this position is theological and historical, rather than biblical. But biblically, there are five texts which seem to suggest a single elder. We will look at these not in canonical order but from the weakest arguments to the strongest.
(1) Revelation 2-3–there is one “angel” over each church. The word angel (a[ggelo”, anggelos) is sometimes translated “messenger” in scripture. Hence, perhaps the single “angel” over each church is the single elder (pastor), rather than an angel.
The problem with this view is manifold: (1) a[ggelo” (anggelos) is used 67 times in Revelation. If we exclude the references in chapters 2 and 3 for the sake of argument, we see a remarkable thing: every instance of a[ggelo” [anggelos] refers to an angel. (Unless of course pastors can fly! cf. Rev 14:6). (2) Even if Rev 2-3 were an exception, “messenger” is hardly an appropriate term for a pastor. Pastors were, in NT times, restricted to a certain locale geographically. But a messenger is one who moves about. (3) The genre of the Revelation fits what is called “apocalyptic.” In apocalyptic literature there is a strong emphasis on angels. Among other duties, they are responsible before heaven for groups of godly people. Thus, when the Lord says, “to the angel of the church at _______, write” we have apocalyptic symbolism and imagery occurring. Angels are evidently in view, not pastors.
(2) 2 John 1, 3 John 1–the “elder” writes to the elect lady and to Gaius. Some argue that John describes himself in these two little letters as “the elder” because he is the lone elder at the church. There are a few problems with this view, however.
First, the author is writing to two different people at apparently two different churches. Would he be their elder? If so, then we have an anomalous situation unparalleled in the rest of the NT: a single elder for at least two churches. If not, would he perhaps be the elder at the church of Ephesus writing to Christians at other churches? That too is doubtful, because (a) why would he not mention which church he was elder over? and (b) if he were the elder at the church of Ephesus, what business does he have meddling in other churches’ affairs?12
Second, suppose that John is actually writing to one and the same church in 2 John and 3 John. If so, couldn’t he be their elder? Not only is there, at best, a very slim chance that only one church is being addressed,13 but such a hypothesis produces a very large problem for itself: this lone elder apparently is an absentee elder who gives no certain evidence that he will even visit the church, let alone teach there! (Although this is clearly his desire, he refrains from absolute certitude.) Notice 2 John 12: “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” Likewise, 3 John 10 says “if I come [to the church]” and v. 14 says “I hope to see you.”
Third, the apparent meaning of “the elder” in these two little letters seems to be the equivalent of “the old man.” The term used, in fact, can only be given a technical nuance in contexts that seem to demand it. Presbuvtero” (presbuteros) is a word which frequently meant simply “old man” (cf. Acts 2:17; 1 Tim 5:1). This fits well with the probable authorship of these letters (namely, John the apostle). By the time he had settled in Asia Minor as the last living apostle, it would be quite appropriate for him to take on a term of endearment and affection: “This letter is from the old man.”
(3) 1 Tim 3:2 (cf. Titus 1:7)–“bishop” is singular, while “deacons” (1 Tim 3:8) is plural. This would seem to argue that there was but one bishop/elder per church, while there would have been several deacons.
Again, such an argument has very little substance. First, it is unlikely that only one bishop is in view because otherwise it is difficult to explain 1 Tim 5:17 (“let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor”) and Titus 1:5 “appoint elders in every town”).14
Second, it is likely that the “bishop” in 1 Tim 3:2 is generic. The article is used this way in Greek very frequently. That is, the singular is used to specify a class as opposed to an individual. J. W. Roberts, a Greek grammarian, pointed out along these lines: “A case in point where wrong use has been made of the generic article is in reference to ‘bishop’ in 1 Timothy 3:2. This has often been used to prove the existence of the monarchal bishop at the time of the writing of the Pastorals. A majority of the commentators, however, agree that the usage is generic.” Cf. also Matt 12:35; 15:11; 18:17; Luke 10:7; John 2:25. The generic article is actually used thousands of times in the NT.
Third, further evidence that “bishop” is generic in 1 Tim 3:2 is found in the overall context. (Keep in mind that the NT had no chapter or verse divisions originally. These were inventions of later centuries.) Notice the context in which behavior in the church occurs: 1 Tim 2:8-3:13. In 2:8 Paul addresses “the men.” In 2:9-10 he addresses “the women.” Then, in 2:11-12 he says that “a woman should learn quietly . . . I do not permit a woman to teach . . . a man.” Paul is not here speaking of a particular woman (otherwise he would surely have mentioned her by name), but women as a class. In 2:15 he says “but she shall be saved . . . if they continue.” Thus, there is a free exchange of the singular and the plural here. Immediately after this Paul speaks of “the bishop.” Then, in 3:8 he addresses “the deacons.” The overall context is very clearly dealing with classes of individuals. The only time it is not, in fact, is when Paul speaks of Adam and Eve (2:13-14), yet even here he quickly gets into the relevance for his readers in v. 15 (“she . . . they”).
C. Summary
The biblical evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of multiple elders. The few passages which might otherwise be interpreted certainly do not have to be so interpreted and, in fact, most likely should not be. This fact illustrates a fundamental principle of biblical interpretation: do not follow an interpretation which is only possible; instead, base your convictions on what is probable.
The rest of our arguments are presented here very briefly since the basic one, the biblical argument, has been addressed at some length.
II. Historical Arguments
In Ignatius (an early Christian writer who died in c. AD 117), at the beginning of the second century, already a monarchical episcopate exists. It is interesting that Roman Catholics especially appeal to this as a model for their practices (since they rely on the tradition found in patristic writers like Ignatius far more than on divine revelation). Those who deny the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles (i.e., 1-2 Timothy and Titus) also see the pastorals as reflecting a one-elder situation (=monarchical episcopate) because they regard the pastorals as having been written during the time of Ignatius. But evangelicals should not consider arguments from either camp as weighty. In particular, if we equate either what the early church fathers practiced or believed as totally in line with the New Testament, then we have some significant retooling to do in our churches today. Some examples:
• Didache (c. AD 100-150)–gives several regulations about baptism and fasting, much of which is pure legalism. (For example, in one place he says, “Let us not fast as the Jews do, who fast on Mondays and Thursdays. Instead, let us fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.” In his discussions of baptism, he argues that cold water is better than warm, etc.–all arguments that have nothing whatever to do with the biblical revelation).
• Most early church fathers (i.e., 2nd-3rd century AD) didn’t have a clue about grace, eternal security, the gospel. The church very quickly degenerated into basic legalism. It was not until Augustine that the church recovered some of this. But then it fell into the dark ages, waiting for a young monk from Germany to nail his protests on the door of the Wittenberg Church. Dr. Ted Deibler (former chairman of Church History at Dallas Seminary) used to say, “the one thing we can be certain of learning from church history is that we learn nothing from church history.” He meant by this that we are on very dangerous ground if we assume uniformly correct theology from the church fathers.
• Allegorical interpretation and eschatology: Origen and his school in particular promoted a view of scripture which was quite fanciful.
In sum, the argument for a single leader of each church is especially persuasive to Roman Catholics because it did occur throughout church history. Yet, such traditions can never replace the Word of God. In fact, with the birth of the Reformation came a renewed understanding of the priesthood of the believer which, in turn, moved away from the notion of a single leader at the top.
III. Theological Arguments
• The quirks of personality: a church becomes like its leader (a student becomes like his teacher [cf. Luke 6:40]).
• The emphasis in scripture on doing the work of the ministry in company with other believers: e.g., Paul never went on a missionary journey by himself (Barnabas, Silvanus, Sosthenes, Timothy, Luke were especially his traveling companions). Paul even included his companions’ names in the greetings to various churches. In fact, he regarded them unofficially as apostles (not holding the office, but certainly functioning in that capacity). Jesus sent his disciples out two-by-two. (This is not to say that individuals are paralyzed and can’t do anything–cf. Philip ministering to the Ethiopian eunuch, Paul in prison ministering to Caesar’s household, etc. But the ideal is ministry by community.)
• This same principle is taught in John 13:35. (Knowledge of Jesus comes through his disciples in a community effort, that is, in their love for one another.)
• Accountability and our sin natures (see opening paragraph at the start of this position paper). Each leader knows that he lacks complete balance, that there are things he continues to struggle with. Further, even beyond the sin nature factor is the personality factor. Some pastors are detail men; others are big picture men. Some love music, others have gotten little from music (C. S. Lewis was one such man). All of us together contribute to the way the body of Christ works. But a church that follows in lock-step with the personality and foibles of one man will always be imbalanced.
IV. Pragmatic Arguments
Even if there were no decisive arguments for plurality of elders, the preponderance of evidence is decidely on the side of this view. Further, in consultation with others (especially church historian, M. James Sawyer at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary), the following principle seems to be true: Churches that have a pastor as an authority above others (thus, in function, a monarchical episcopate) have a disproportionately high number of moral failures at the top level of leadership. In other words, it is less likely for a pastor to fall into sin if he is primus inter parus (“first among equals” in the sense of his visibility and training, not spirituality) than if he is elevated above the rest of the church leadership.
Thus, the case of multiple elders in the local church is solidly based on biblical, historical, and pragmatic reasons. By having several leaders, the church is more able to take on the personality of Christ rather than the idiosyncracies of any one man.
________________________________________
1 One of the measures of how mature a church is is what happens to it when the pastor leaves. If it continues to grow, there is an underlying network of mature leadership. If it shrinks, this may well suggest that much of the size of the church originally was due to the magnetism of a single person.
2 This is actually quite similar to the “checks and balances” in the U.S. Constitution. This document was written with a heavy input from Christians who understood depravity. They recognized, I think, that the best form of government was a benevolent dictatorship, and the worst was a malevolent dictatorship. With dictators, there is no guarantee. Hence, the second best form of government is one in which no single branch of government and no individual is given too much power. This Constitution was written after the Articles of Confederation (inspired especially by Deists who believed in the inherent goodness of humanity)–which were very weak on checks and balances–failed.
3 That these lists were a bit different on this point (and some others) indicates an extremely important point: Much of the instruction given about church order is ad hoc rather than of universal principle. It is our duty to discern which is which. For example, I have no strong opinion about how the leaders of a church are to be appointed, because the NT seems to be flexible in this regard (e.g., some churches did it by congregational vote, others had appointments from apostolic delegates). The NT is flexible on areas that are not consequential.
4 The normal understanding of the difference in function of the two groups is this: elders are primarily concerned with the spiritual welfare of the congregation, while deacons are primarily concerned with the physical welfare of the congregation. Thus, elders would oversee the direction of the church, work with the pastor (or pastors) on the spiritual needs of the church (what they should be fed, etc.).
5 The fundamental principle of discipleship is the passing on of truth in the context of love to faithful individuals, who in turn would do the same thing (2 Tim 2:2). The ideal is for every member of the church to carry on this task. It is obvious (from 2 Tim 2:2) that discipleship and a teaching ministry were not to be restricted to just pastors or those with the gift of teaching.
6 One of the first churches I was in that was run by a plurality of elders had a rather mature pastor. He was one of the brightest and godliest men I’ve ever known, thoroughly saturated in the Word of God. Yet, he did not even have a vote on the elder board. The elders frequently asked his opinion. But he also respected their leadership. He told me once that having the elders run the show gave him a greater measure of freedom, for it allowed him more time to work on his messages. He didn’t have to wear several hats and therefore did not get burned out in the ministry. Further, he noted that the elders had maturity of years over him and collective wisdom that he wanted to learn from. The man had a Th.M. degree and a Th.D. degree from a leading seminary, yet he eagerly bowed to the leadership and wisdom of the elder board! That was humility! In fact, every year he submitted to a rigorous personal evaluation of his life by the elders. They asked him the tough questions, such as faithfulness to his wife, what he read, saw, participated in, and what he did with his money and his spare time. This was not a ‘big brother is watching you’ lynching; it was something this pastor volunteered for. The church grew quickly and profoundly because of such accountability at the top levels.
7 The early church had but one church in each city or town. Hence, Paul’s instruction to Titus is to appoint multiple elders in every church.
8 That each church to which Peter is writing had multiple elders is likely from vv. 2-3–“Tend [poimavnete, poimanete–a plural verb; thus, “you elders”] the flock [singular] of God that is your charge . . . by being examples [plural] to the flock.” Thus, multiple elders are linked to a single flock each time.
9 It is most likely that only elders are in view. The reason for this is that, as we have argued above, young churches did not have deacons but did have elders. Paul had spent only about three weeks with the Thessalonians. But he appointed leaders before his departure. Thus, it is likely that he appointed only elders. In the least, there is not even a hint in this text that only one elder and several deacons were appointed.
10 Since the duties of the leaders are described in this manner, it is obvious that multiple elders are in view (since deacons were not responsible primarily to keep watch over the souls).
11 Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 177.
12 Some denominations have a bishop over several churches and an elder at an individual church. But John is called an elder, not a bishop. Thus, these denominations have a difficult time basing their view on scripture.
13 In fact, many today see three churches addressed: 2 John has one in view; 3 John seems to have Gaius’ church and Diotrephes’ church in view. I am presently undecided on this issue (that is, whether two or three churches are envisioned). One of the fundamental arguments against 2 John and 3 John being addressed to the same church is that the situations are radically different: 2 John addresses the problem of heretics outside the church attempting to get in; 3 John addresses the sin of pride already within the church by an orthodox leader. Thus, 2 John has to do with doctrine and 3 John is about ethics and holiness. Hence, in the least two churches are in view in the Johannine letters, and perhaps three. Is John the elder of all of them?
14 Recall that “elder” = “bishop” and that each town had but one church.
I believe he’s talking about Elder Ruled Churches, and not plurality of Elders.
David
David is correct, I think.
And Tom, in the future it might be better to provide a link than to post a comment this long.
After reading this comment, I’m going to have to take a nap.
LOL Jess!
Hi TOM,
you wrote this,
“In particular, if we equate either what the early church fathers practiced or believed as totally in line with the New Testament . . . ”
It kind of works in reverse, if you remember how it was that the great Council verified which books were to be included in the canon of the New Testament . . .
one criteria was proof that the early Church Fathers had consistently referred to, quoted, or read openly in congregation from those sacred writings . . .
the early Church Fathers didn’t have a formal New Testament, but had access to the writings passed down to them by the Apostles
who gave them to the sub-Apostolic witnesses (Polycarp is one, having sat at the feet of the Apostle John),
and then to the sub Apostolic witnesses who then passed the sacred writings down to their followers (Irenaeus was a follower of Polycarp).
In short, the New Testament canon was formally vetted by the Council on the basis that the Early Church Fathers had USED the teachings inherent in those writings consistently, over time, and in the portion of the Sunday service called ‘the Service of the Word’.
Not sure it is wise to dismiss the Early Church Fathers as so very unreliable and unbiblical, TOM.
If you ever have interest or opportunity, check out the writings of St. Ambrose. In no way did he forsake the Apostolic inheritance in his writings.
William,
This might sound like a loaded question, I promise it is not. I’m genuinely curious of your take on this. And I’m still thinking through this in my own head.
Would you consider elder-rule to be a sin? (Not elder-led, because there is a big difference there).
Elder Ruled is not what Baptists have seen the Bible teach….thus, we’re not Presbyterian. Sinful? I’m not sure about that, but it’s not the best way to govern a Church. Only a handful of men, who can do whatever they want to do….sounds like some of the old Deacon Boards, who ran Churches….it wasnt a good thing for the Deacons to run a Church, either.
David
I agree as well, David. We just recently adopted our churches new constitution and it is elder-led. We took great pains to show the difference.
What got me thinking about this was the relationship that William drew between churches that embrace homosexuality. I understand the connection was in regards to the BF&M. I’m just trying to think through William’s very good question.
Obviously, the SBC at most every level is highly selective in what we choose to act upon. I just could not think of another reason that the naitonal SBC took action against a church. The only relationship with homosexuality is that this was the cause of action in those cases.
Mike Leake,
If I understand what you have stated in your comment, I agree. Elder-Rule is not the same as Elder-Led.
I also agree with Vol. “Elder-Ruled is not what Baptists have seen the Bible teach. . . ” There is a reason for that.
Historically, Baptists have held to an ecclesiology that is closer to a biblical ecclesiology than any other theologically structured group of Christ followers. This is definitely true of those Baptists known as Southern Baptists, a group of local Baptist churches volitionally connected by a cooperative affiliation based upon:
1). A commonly held biblical, practical, and systematic theology (especially affiliated due to a rather solid agreement on the doctrines of soteriology and ecclesiology) and. . .
2). The biblical mandate of the Great Commission
A congregational governance under the Headship of Christ is the biblical model.
Historically, Southern Baptists have followed the biblical model.
There are new movements among some who claim to be Southern Baptists such as Elder-Ruled congregations, adherents to infant baptism, and belief that baptism and the Lord’s Supper can be a literal conveyance of saving grace.
Anyone who adheres to the above or any one of the above is not a Southern Baptist. Any local church which adheres to the above or any one of the above is not Southern Baptist church.
Let me quickly state that not being a Southern Baptist equates to not being a Christian. (Many folks who claim to be Southern Baptists are not children of God and have no personal relationship to Christ. Therefore, they are lost and on their way to hell, unless they are born again.)
It simply means that one is not a Southern Baptist and nothing more and nothing less.
“Historically, Baptists have held to an ecclesiology that is closer to a biblical ecclesiology than any other theologically structured group of Christ followers.”
I disagree, if only because the Bible is so unclear as to what exactly was the ecclesiology of the early church. Here is an area where much ink has been spilled and yet the Bible is so silent. It’s not that the details are hidden, but that they are unimportant. It was not high priority to the authors of Scripture to describe how a local church should be organized. A few principles are revealed, and the qualifications for overseers/bishops and deacons are outlined, but never does the Bible spell out how the church should be governed. We attempt to reconstruct from various pieces, but the pieces are unclear. Thus I think it is somewhat fruitless to try to argue that this or that mode of ecclesiology is the most biblical.
Chris Roberts,
You are wrong. Baptist ecclesiology is closer to a biblical ecclesiology than any other ecclesiology. It really is that simple.
However, you may disagree and I will fight to give you that privilege. Historically, Baptists have always been really big on that also.
The “unclearness” you may have is possibly to a desire for it to be unclear. BTW, please don’t make this another Calvinist argument, Chris. It is not one.
cb,
…? Where did anything in my comment offer the slightest hint that I wanted this to be a Calvinism argument? I stated what I see in the Bible: that polity is not an issue stressed in the text. I am not trying to bring in Calvinism every time I disagree with you. I limit that to every other time.
Either way, I am curious if you could point to resources/books/articles/whatever that make the case that Baptist ecclesiology is closest? I have read such arguments before and find them unconvincing. The Bible simply does not lay out the case for one particular form.
Chris Roberts,
I will be glad to fulfill your request to “point to resources/books/articles/whatever that make the case that Baptist ecclesiology is closest”
Although, I will only need to point to one.
The one resource that will make the case that Baptist ecclesiology is “closer” is the Bible.
Could not resist that one, Chris. You simply dropped your guard and closed your eyes on that one. 🙂
SEC CB–
“Let me quickly state that not being a Southern Baptist equates to not being a Christian.”
Huh?
Duckman Dale,
Thanks for catching my “failure to communicate” as was stated by the Warden in Cool Hand Luke.
That statement should have been:
Let me quickly state that not being a Southern Baptist “does not equate” to not being a Christian.
I think you might agree that was the intent of the statement’s construction if you read the rest of my comments.
Again, thanks for catching that for me. Were I to believe such a thing to be true, I would be of all men most stupid.
I THOUGHT I knew better, and did think that was what you were saying, but then I said to myself, “Self, you’d better let the good doctor explain this one to you.”
…as in all Presbyterians are sinners because of ecclesiology? Well, not exactly.
My read is that an elder ruled church, not being congregational in most any reasonable sense of the term, is not governed by democratic processes.
“…as in all Presbyterians are sinners because of ecclesiology? Well, not exactly.
William Thornton,
I am glad you made that comment. I would hope that our Southern Baptist brothers and sisters would not declare that those brothers and sisters who are children of God, yet are members of churches other than Southern Baptist churches are “living in sin” because they are of an ecclesiological position other than a historical Baptistic ecclesiology.
Frankly, I would hope this thread did not become a defense of Calvinism or an attack on Presbyterians, stating they are living in sin because of their church governance.
Whew! Thank you CB.
One question, you said, “Historically, Baptists have held to an ecclesiology that is closer to a biblical ecclesiology than any other theologically structured group of Christ followers.”
Why the word “closer?” What prevents you from saying, “Historically, Baptists have held to an ecclesiology that is THE biblical ecclesiology?”
Where for the Baptist is the fuzziness that prevents you from saying that Baptist ecclesiology is THE biblical ecclesiology?
Les
Les Prouty,
I use the word “closer” because it must be admitted that while Baptist ecclesiology is “closer” to biblical ecclesiology, it is not perfect.
These discussions often go sour because someone makes a statement that equates being Baptist with being a Christian. At that point the whole parade goes either to Nashville or Geneva. The gates of heaven open to neither place.
Thanks CB. I think we can all agree that there is not certainty on specific polity.
“These discussions often go sour because someone makes a statement that equates being Baptist with being a Christian.”
I need a “Like” button. Hope no one makes such.
Our church is not elder ruled or led. We are committee ruled/led. While we as a congregation do vote on big matters like the budget, calling ministers, etc., the rest of the business is left up to committees. Also, when there is a ‘big’ or controversial vote, people you haven’t seen for years come out of the woodwork to vote. I’ve even seen a man round up the teen an ore teen members and have them vote his way.
John, I have heard and seen that as well. In almost every case, I would say that the leadership of the church is not doing a good job of church discipline, in that, “members” that haven’t been there for years are still members. And yes, pruning membership rolls does not have to be a mean-spirited matter.
Our church has the policy that once you have been absent for a year with no contact and no indication that a person wishes to maintain their membership then they are automaticly removed from the membership roles. No vote required, no mean spirited action.
William, I think this is still a congregational church. Here’s Article 1.02 of their by-laws. This doesn’t sound like an elder-ruled church:
“Membership Covenant.
The covenant members of the church shall vote on the matters of (a) the annual operating budget; (b) indebtedness associated with the purchase or construction of real estate; (c) cumulative indebtedness for all other aspects of church business that exceeds twenty percent (20%) of the annual church operating budget; (d) acceptance of an amended or restated constitution or bylaws; (e) disposition of substantially of all of the church’s assets; (f) merger or dissolution of the Church; and (g) other actions deemed major and extraordinary by the elders.
All items above will be communicated to the church not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the vote and afterwards as well. Comments received from the church will be considered on a case-by-case basis.”
It looks like the elders handle the day-to-day operations of the church, but bring the “major and extraordinary” decisions to the church body.
I still have a problem with the Church not being able to vote on the Elders…that’s a problem to me….voting on the budget and other big things does sound better….
David
David, I agree. I think it’s odd that the church doesn’t vote on elders. I still don’t think we can call them elder-ruled. After all, it sounds like the church body voted on these by-laws, and that they can change them as well?
Possibly the congregation doesn’t vote on the elders because of the sheer size of the congregation. The argument could be made that the elders have a better grasp of the character of elder candidates than the members of the congregation could. The congregation as a whole might be seen as being a bit too far removed from the process to be able to vote in an informed manner.
I think that congregational polity might get a bit unwieldy in a church of that size. I don’t know how well it works because I’ve never been in that situation. It seems to me that some form of more centralized leadership is necessary because of the potential chaos that could ensue from the hundreds (or thousands) of voters involved.
The day-to-day function of a church should not be up to congregational vote, and I don’t think that’s what William is suggesting. I also don’t see that in the BF&M. His question is an interesting one, though.
Do you think that someone from the church in question might look at our conversation and ask, “What’s the big deal?”
Dale,
The Elders could recommend the prospective, new Elders to the Church….and then, let the Church vote on them. That’d work.
David
Isn’t that simply affirming what the elders have already decided?
The Church still has a voice and a vote, Dale. Even though it’s the Elders recommending the new Elders….just as a Search Committee would do…so, I think that would meet some basic requirements for being congregational….IMHO.
David
Yeah, David, I see your point, but I wonder just how it would work out practically. I recognize there would be a need for the congregation to “trust the process” as in a pastor search. My concern would be completely pragmatic. How can hundreds or thousands of people truly make a decision without being a part of the process? I would add that I see this as an issue in the large church pastor search process as well. Seems to me it’s a simple rubber stamp, that’s all. But we do it in congregational churches that work through committees as well, so I guess it isn’t that big a deal.
And I see your humble opinion and raise you one humbler (read that “probably not as well-informed as I would like to be”) opinion.
Jared,
I think you might be correct. I looked through their By-Laws but didn’t see the section you mentioned. For me personally, I think it would be better to have the congregation affirm elders that the elder body presents. But that’s just me.
I’d have to agree that this is still a congregational church…but maybe a little too close to elder-rule for some. But I do think that given this particular section in their by-laws they’d be fulfilling the democratic processes of the BF&M.
Good point, although the controlling legalities may be the Texas nonprofit laws not the membership covenant. I bet that if it came to it, the elders could countermand any congregational decision.
FYI, what most agree is an elder ruled church is a PCA church. But, even a PCA church still gets elder nominations from the congregation and the congregation votes on those elders. A pastor is also voted on and called by the congregation.
I think an elder board voting only on themselves is a dangerous form of government and is definitely not a federal form, which presbyterian is.
William,
(1) Surely you see the difference in a church advocating sinful behavior (homosexuality) and a church practicing a different polity (eldership)? It seems bizarre that you would suggest that if we remove for the first, we should consider removing for the second. Do you really believe these differences are morally equivalent?
(2) I’ll see your one example of a problem in an elder-led church and raise you 10 (or 100, etc) anecdotal stories of congregation-ruled churches that went through a host of issues because the congregation would not agree in their decisions for the church. Everyone has horror stories to tell. Who cares that you can find some examples in elder-led churches? I know of far more elder-led churches that have functioned well than of elder-led churches where the leadership model led to problems.
While I agree with you, your second point is moot and not fair to William’s article. He’s not saying anything about elder-led churches. He was saying that the Village Church was elder-ruled. (I think that has been proven false by Jared’s comments above). But William’s point stands that if a church is elder-ruled are they adhering to the BF&M and ought they be considered Baptists. That is what needs to be discussed not whether it’s better to be “elder-led” or “congregation-ruled”.
Mike,
I’ve seen the distinction between elder-led and elder-rule and I should probably pay more attention to discern the difference (and pay more attention to use the term William used since he said elder-ruled, not elder-led), but either way my point 2 was in response to William’s passing jab in the last sentence of his post, making it a fair response.
I think we are straying from the intent (as I understood it) of William’s article.
Elder-led churches, while perhaps outside the SBC norm, are still congregational. I maintain (as I have written) that all churches have some form of elder leadership – bibilically based or not.
But elder-rule? That is different and seems to be outside the parameters of the BF&M.
So, two questions:
1) Is this church really elder-ruled?
2) Does that put them outside the BF&M in such a way that they should be sanctioned in some form?
And more importantly
Can we please come up with a better distinction than “elder-led” vs “elder-ruled” so my small brain doesn’t have to struggle every time to try and remember which is which and what is what?
The differentiation is pretty simple – does the congregation hold the elders accountable?
If the elders lead the church with the assent and approval of the church, it’s elder leadership.
If the elders lead and the church has little to say in response, its elder rulership.
Permit me to put this another way. When the elders want one thing and the church body wants another, which way prevails?
In elder rule, the congregation may get to speak its mind, but the elders have the last word.
In elder leadership, the elder say what they believe is right, but the congregation gets the last word.
Chris, I don’t see William suggesting “moral equivalency.” He’s raising an issue of how the Convention enforces the BF&M. If we see issues within the BF&M as being of first, second, and third order (or however many levels you want to apply to it), then should that not be stipulated within the BF&M? If it all applies the same then where are we going to draw our lines?
I agree with your distinction between the two issues. The point seems to me to be what the BF&M says, what individual churches are doing, and what the SBC will do about those individual churches that don’t adhere to the BF&M. Which all begs the question, “Who decides what the BF&M says, what it means, how we interpret it, and how rigidly do we follow it?”
I personally believe that this is an issue which should be left to the local church.
You’re right, moral equivalent was the wrong way to phrase that, but he does make them equivalent in some sense. If we will expel for homosexuality, why not for leadership style? Deviations of the same order, in his book.
One issue that I don’t think anyone has raised is that churches are not required to affirm the BF&M to still be Southern Baptist. Many state conventions require the BF&M but I don’t think the national convention does (if someone knows otherwise, I’d be glad to be corrected – I may well be wrong on this). Thus it really does become a trickier issue when a church chooses not to adhere to this or that teaching of the BF&M. The convention (that is, the voting members) might still vote to exclude a church on any basis whatsoever, be it their adherence to the BF&M or any other matter, but I don’t think adherence to the BF&M automatically disqualifies the church on the basis of convention bylaws.
The question is how we determine which violations of the BF&M are considered serious and which are not.
Yes. That is the question. Thus, I would point to my questions again. I ask them realizing that I have no good answers.
Try not to tell me what I believe, please. You could ask and I’d be happy to answer.
I made no suggestion of moral equivalence, merely used the example at hand.
My consistent advice to traditional churches and particularly their search committees is to scrutinize very closely any candidate who expresses an affinity for elder governance. It may be that a certain candidate is merely enamored with the term “elder” without desiring any change in church polity or governance. It may be that he has an agenda.
I wonder to what degree you quantify that. I think it is pretty plain that the most common form in Scripture is elder leadership (or rule or whatever which one means what I mean) but as I’ve said before I don’t think the Bible dictates the approach churches should take. There is a bit of freedom in matters of polity. It’s not even like a theological debate where one side is free to be wrong and still be more or less orthodox – in this case it isn’t even a matter of right and wrong, but what works best in a given situation.
That to say, I came into my church knowing that what seems to be the clearest example in Scripture is elder leadership, but also believing the Bible does not tell us which polity we must adopt, so I was satisfied with the polity of the church (which is fairly typical for SBC churches) and I’ve not done a thing to try and change it, nor do I expect I would ever do so.
I don’t believe that lack of democracy is a sin. Lack of theocracy is a sin. Just as in our daily walk, decisions made without the guidance of the Holy Spirit are ill-conceived.
From a church body, governing groups should attempt to act according to scripture, but also in unity of the Holy Spirit. Those leading the groups should have as their goals an attempt to understand where the Spirit is leading. That is where something that looks like democracy should come in.
The decision of which people make those determinations about the leadership of the Spirit should also be carefully guided by prayer.
Once that is understood in a congregation, arguments about who decides what is just evidence of a lack of spiritual unity and seeking God.
Misunderstandings are then not over who is right or wrong, or who control or power in the group, but over where is the Spirit leading. At this point, again, a polling of those gathered to decide (democracy) should bear out where God is leading.
A church is not a democracy, but uses elements of democracy to determine what God has been saying in a group of people striving to find the unity that is found in Him.
Kyle,
The Church should be a Theocracy…where all the members determine what it is that God wants us to do. We, of course, should let the Bible determine what we should do….in matters where it’s clearly spelled out….but, in matters where the Bible is not clear, then all the Church should be trusted to pray and discern the will of God….not just a chosen few.
David
Excellent comment, Kyle. Fully agree.
I’m not sure Village Church should be the focal point of this particular discussion. While it holds SBC affiliation, it is foremost an Acts 29 church (a denomination/non-denomination mix). The lead pastor of this multi-campus mega-church is Matt Chandler, who is also Acts 29 President. Acts 29 headquarters of this non-SBC organization operates from SBC Village Church offices!
It should be no surprise that Village Church leans heavily toward “elder-rule” in its definition of plurality of elders since this is the platform established by Acts 29 founder Mark Driscoll. Village Church is primarily governed by Acts 29 requirements, rather than BFM guidelines.
Thus, I don’t think we should attempt to link BFM congregational polity and Village Church governance as a case study here. However, it is clear that Acts 29 message and methods have influenced some young SBC church planters. Several new plants in my area opened the doors with a plurality of elders leadership model – elders are hand-picked by existing elders, congregational meetings are essentially non-existent (elder-rule or elder-led?). This is certainly an area SBC leadership must consider soon.
My point was that this church is affiliated with the SBC, however lightly. Any church in friendly cooperation that is identified as an SBC church, whatever level of meaning is given that phrase, is certainly subject to examination. As I said, I thought the by-laws interesting and wondered about how this church would be viewed in that regard. It certainly is a legitimate question in light of the Calvinist/Traditionalist discussions.
I made the point in my blog on the nine largest SBC churches that many were only superficially SBC.
“… only superficially SBC.”
Brother Thornton, that is indeed our dilemma in many corners of SBC life these days. The BFM2000 revision appears to have given too much wiggle room for belief and practice … something for everybody it seems.
One more observation here. As a church gets bigger, it becomes essential that more and more responsibility be entrusted to leadership. When I first got to Cedar Rapids 22 years ago, there were 50 or 60 folks in a struggling church. We could have a business meeting discussion on almost everything.
When we grew, and started approaching 150 to 200 average attendance, you simply could not have that kind of true congregationalism. More responsibility had to move to me and to leadership.
In my current church, somewhat bigger than my Cedar Rapids church was, we’ve had to put more and more responsibility into the hands of leadership.
Here’s my theory. If you look at the Magnificent Nine (or whatever William was calling them) you are going to find that the reality is that very little is congregationally approved in any of them. The church approves staff, budgets, sets policy, etc, but operations are handled almost entirely by staff or whomever the church has designated.
By definition, a megachurch has to move away from congregationalism in some form or another.
“One more observation here. As a church gets bigger, it becomes essential that more and more responsibility be entrusted to leadership.”
I believe that Dave Miller is right on this also. With growth comes a certain degree of consolidation of the day-to-day leadership. It is inevitable.
One example of an Elder Ruled Church…a Presbyterian Church near me fired the Pastor and the Youth Pastor on a Thursday night over nothing…. just didnt like them. The next Sunday, the Church met for worship, and wondered where their Pastor and Youth Pastor were….not knowing anything had happened. When they found out what the Elders had done….watch out! It turned ugly….really, really ugly; and it led to the Church having an all out fight…which led to many members leaving the Church.
David
David, is that a PCA church? I’m curious of more details because in a PCA church the elders (session) cannot fore a called pastor. It’s impossible. They may can vote that he should go, but they don’t have the authority to relieve him of his charge. Only the congregation can do that in conjunction with the presbytery.
Plus the fact that the pastor is one of the elders.
Les,
It was a Cumberland Presbyterian Church.
David
An Elder Ruled Church is just as bad as a Deacon Ruled Church…in fact, it’s the same thing.
David
True.
Vol, I think that there is actually little difference. . . and both are not of the biblical model.
And an SEC ruled NCAA is as bad as………well, you get the picture.
Yep.
It is as clear as can possibly be that Elders can only lead; they do not have the authority to over ride the Church. Our Lord was explicit, In the case of trespass between brothers in a church, the brothers are, first, to seek reconciliation with one another, second, if that does not work, then they are to take with them one or two more as witnesses, and, last, if that does not work, then they are “to tell it unto the church.”(Mt.18:15-17). Note that it does not say the elders or elder; it says “the church.” In that day people knew that the ekklesia was a governing body, composed of members with equal voice. We even have an instance of a local, secular ekklesia in Acts 19. I agree with the plodder, Southern Baptist, indeed, Baptist doctrine, biblical doctrine is that the church is congregational with reference to its church government. Any one who knows the history of Baptist doctrine and the writers of it also know this is a fact. The presbyterians are the ones who advocate elder rulership. The few Baptists I know that have tried this method of church government found themselves stymied by the reality that with elders in control, a change can take place very quickly as it did with most of our Presbyterian friends.
Very good point, Dr. Willingham. I agree the church seems to have been pretty democratic from the start. Elders played a role, but it was probably one of doctrinal oversight–and a general oversight at that. Intervention probably took place only when beliefs and practices appeared obviously off. I don’t think the early church witnessed anything like what’s practiced today in elder-ruled or presbyterian assemblies. I recall how the Scriptures speak of things going out from “the church” and returning to “the church.”
It seems to me “the church” spoke and acted, perhaps by voting, and ultimately as led by the Spirit of God. The early church seems to have been quite democratic if for no other reason than because God was on its side operating through it. At that time in history I could imagine this was entirely novel, and it no doubt inspired what we’ve come to enjoy politically in the West today.
OK, I’m still trippin over CB’s statement:
Let me quickly state that not being a Southern Baptist equates to not being a Christian.
To quote Inigo Montoya, I don’t think this means what you think it means. But I’m guessing it also doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means.
Here’s the deal. Elder leadership is Biblical! Elder rule? Maybe not, and often unwise to leave the congregation out of any decision that they would like to be heard on.
I know of The Village and have immense respect for it’s pastor and what he has done over the years. But I operate out of a fairly traditional Texas-style SBC ecclesiology. But I HAVE STUDIED the scriptures on this subject and the only thing we practice with less scriptural mandate as SBCers is ordination! That’s REALLY an obscure practice Biblically speaking, church polity only slightly less so.
And I must admit that while I appreciated the original posting here I thought the allusion to First Mycanopy (or my-canopy or my-can-of-peas) was frivolous and superfluous. For every story like that I’ll show you 50 where congregational churches ran amuck.
Clark Dunlap,
Please check the correction to my statement in the comment to Duckman Dale above. I apologize for making such an absurd statement even if by mistake.
Clark Dunlap, you are right. Elder leadership is biblical. Elder rule is not.
Congregational governance is biblical. Baptist ecclesiology is the closer to biblical ecclesiology than any other ecclesiology.
BTW, I don’t think the New Testament will give credibility to a “traditional Texas-styled SBC ecclesiology” any more than to an ecclesiology that adheres to Elder rule.
CB: It is hard to admit that you and I sometimes agree, but on this point I am as adamant as you. The folks are simply infatuated with the great messages of the Puritans and Presbyterians, forgetting that the former were, apparently, for the most part, congregationalists. It was interesting for me to go back and do some reading in the sources in the 1500s and 1600s wherein the Puritan party arose out of the Anglican Episcopalian clerical view of the church (basically Rome without a Pope, but with an Archbishop) and became congregational. What drove them to it was the meaning and usage of ekklesia in the Old and New Testament. E.g., ekklesia was used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew word, Qahal, and then it was used by the Greeks with very specific meaning as to a governing body of a Greek City state…Then our Lord, apparently, chose that His disciples would use that ekklesia for the qahal of Hebrew to describe the body which would replace the Nation of Israel, which body would also receive the terms, Mt. Zion (where the temple was located in Jerusalem and even the reference to the church as the holy of holies in I Cors.6:19), the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, etc.) We find the secular usage of the term in Acts 19 for the governing body of Ephesus. All the members are equals in this organization, either secular or sacred, and they all participate in its decisions. There is even allowances made for the ones doing some judging to be those who are least esteemed in the body (talk about turning things upside down).
I just want to say there is a wisdom to be discerned in such a study, a wisdom in Scripture which reflects its source in the omniscience of God and which will stretch the minds of believers and enable and empower them to become balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic or, in short, mature advertisements of the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
“It is hard to admit that you and I sometimes agree. . .”
Then don’t trouble yourself, now or ever.
James,
Never let it be said that I would expect a superior minded man such as yourself to degrade himself by agreeing with a common simpleton such as I.
I would never want to be guilty of placing such a burden upon you of which you are not able to bear due to the stressfulness of lowering your standards of thought to such a degree of sub-standard analysis necessary to bring about agreement with the likes of me.
This idea of democracy is an interesting one. Let’s apply it to the church at Corinth:
Corinthian elders: “There is member of our congregation who is sleeping with his stepmother. We are bringing measures to excommunicate him.”
Corinthian congregation: “No! He’s a nice guy. He lets his sheep graze on our lawns to keep them nice and trim! He gives money to the poor. We want to keep him here. Besides, other people are doing it too. We don’t want to look judgmental.”
Corinthian elders: “But he’s consistently unrepentant and thinks what he is doing is OK. We are going to excommunicate him.”
Corinthian congregation: “Let’s vote! It’s in our bylaws that we are a congregationally ruled church.”
So, a vote was held and the elders had to submit to the congregation for fear of losing their affiliation with the regional denominational office. The congregation decided against the elders and the man’s membership was retained.
But, fortunately for them, a non-denominational authority named Paul was informed and he wrote them a letter chastising them for their decision – “Purge the evil one from among you” he wrote. The Corinthian church was outraged at this overstepping of boundaries. They subsequently decided to vote for new leaders and much division arose. It nearly fractured the church – some siding with Paul, some siding with Apollos, some coming out against both of them, and others simply too busy with their own lives to care.
So, what would you say to an elder board overruling a congregation? I think in many instances it is completely acceptable. How would that jive with your understanding of “congregational”?
All I’m trying to say is that:
1) Elder led/ruled IS NOT synonymous with Presbyterianism. I am a pastor a small elder ruled church that is no more Presbyterian than the Baptist church across the street.
2) Elder rule IS NOT synonymous with “no congregational input”. We have short meetings / pot lucks / whatever all the time to gather input and be transparent with what we are planning. We just don’t vote on much. We take everything into consideration and use it to help decide what is best in our context. If that makes us Presbyterian, I’d better inform the congregation. Not that they’d understand what that means though…
3) Sometimes, it is right and proper for the elders to override the congregation. I have seen churches reverse the corruption and instead of edicts coming from on high, wrong motives have come up from the congregation and ousted good leaders because of petty issues. The leaders were powerless in these situations. So, if the elders need to be checked by the congregation, who ultimately checks the congregation?
4) In many “congregational” churches I know about, the congregation has ultimate power. Almost everything is submitted for a vote, and whatever the congregation decides goes. Why is it OK to have all the power gathered in one body if that body is the congregation?
Just questions for thought. I’m not saying that congregationalism is evil, and I’m not saying that elder ruled is perfect. All I’m saying is that it doesn’t seem to be as cut and dried as many think.
I’ll close with this thought to bring it closer to home: church plants. Four families got together to plant a church. The church is almost completely full of unbelievers – people who wouldn’t know Jonah from Noah, and people who grew up in various mainline denominations who never really were taught the truth. This church plants with an elder ruled ecclesiology and creates an elder board because, given their context, the congregation is going to be populated with unbelievers or “baby Christians”. This model works so well that as the church grows and more people become believers, they see the benefit of this kind of mutual submission. The elders see this and decide not to change the bylaws – they will remain elder ruled.
Could this church plant be a Baptist plant? I’m guessing not based on the comments here. It seems that in order to be Baptist, elders can suggest, but the congregation must decide and have the ultimate say in how things are run.
I may have misunderstood, but it’s not just this thread that leads me to that conclusion…
Sorry, this was longer than I had planned. 🙂
Again, I think the crux here is not whether we should condemn your church or anything like that. But our denomination has a doctrinal statement that advocates congregationalism. The question is what we ought to do to when an SBC church does not conform completely to the BF&M on ecclesiological issues.
Jeff Meyer,
A church as you described in your illustration above is neither Baptist, Presbyterian, or Independent of any group. Such a church as you described could not be considered a New Testament church of any stripe. Such a church as you described is just a gathering of morons.
Historically, a congregational governance does not constitute moron governance in a Baptist church. Nor does Elder governance constitute moron governance. Although, there are many morons in churches which adhere to both congregational governance and elder led governance. Neither has a monopoly on morons in the membership.
> Such a church as you described is just a gathering of morons.
Wow…just wow…
I’ll have to tell all my unbelieving or doubting believing or new believing friends at said church that you think they are morons. That’ll do wonders for their impression of Baptists, I wonder what it will do to their already fragile impression of God?
Jeff Meyer,
My comment was in reference to your Corinthian Church illustration. However, I think you know that.
Democratic process is in and of itself a very broad statement. In America we don’t have a referendum on every legislation, but we have a form of respresentative democracy. If the elders are elected by the people of the congregation and not simply appointed it would not be a stretch at all to say that they operate by democratic process. To deny this is to deny America operates according to democratic processes.
I was wondering about that – what if the congregation votes to be elder ruled? 🙂
Jeff,
William actually deals with that a little bit in his article, but he did not address the representative democracy issue. In most elder ruled churches I’ve been around the elders are always elected by the people.
The elders in the case cited were a self-perpetuating group. They and tHey alone chose their successors.
William you’re right about Village Church, but in most churches with Elder government the elders are elected by the congregation. What do you think about that kind of a situation insofar as democratic process is concerned?
Let me rephrase that: If an SBC church has an elder led government where the elders are elected by the congregation, do you believe they are complying with the BFM?
Anyone please share your thoughts.
John Wylie,
The BF&M is nothing more and nothing less than a sufficient guide for cooperation for Baptist churches affiliated with the SBC. It is not an inerrant document.
You may or may not have noticed that I rarely ever enter into threads about the BF&M.
I really don’t base my position on Baptist ecclesiology on the BF&M. The thing could change according to the theological, political, or philosophical whims of SBC leadership as it has in the past. . . and will again.
In all the debates about ecclesiology on Baptist blogs (and there have been many) I have consistently stated that Baptist ecclesiology is closer to biblical ecclesiology than any other. Never once have I used the BF&M to make my case. In my opinion, it is neither infallible or of such strength that it makes good armor in a theological debate. It is what it is, a sufficient guide for cooperation among Southern Baptists. It is a good teaching tool if you have other and more heavy duty tools in your tool box.
The broader point to note here is that elder-rule is an increasingly strong trend among Baptist Christians. Calvinism, its theology and polity, have been gaining inroads for some time now. Why is this? Why do aspects of Presbyterianism have such an allure for some Baptists at this point in time? I’m interested in getting to the bottom of this. Is it that people get bored after a while? Or do they imagine the grass is greener on the other side? Having been Baptist for so long, do some people simply take the tradition for granted? What are your thoughts?
Jon,
In my opinion and in my experience congregationalism has always been one of the great weaknesses of us Baptists. The problems inherent to it are nothing new. I just think our more reformed brothers have brought the issue to the forefront over the past decade or so, and I for one am glad they did.
Can you elaborate? I know that churches go from congregational to presbyterian and vice versa. It seems to me both forms can be ‘seen’ in Scripture.
First of all I agree with you that both forms can be “seen” in scripture, although I do believe the Bible makes a more clear case for an Elder government.
Please don’t take what I’m about to say as mean spirited toward the average member of a church. Although I have known several godly and spiritually mature church members I’ve know many more carnal church members. I’ve seen blatant trouble causers given the floor because of their right to have their say. I’ve seen people who were not contributing presume to have a right to dictate how the funds would be dispensed. I’ve seen people who have insecurity issues flex their democratic muscles in business meetings just because that’s the only forum they have to feel like a big wig. Tony Evans said it right when he said that that the problem with congregationalism is that you always have unspiritual people making church decisions.
I believe that we preachers have interjected into our churches an unbiblical kind of American form of democracy that supports peoples’ right of dissent. When, in fact, the only opinion we should be seeking to accommodate is God’s.
Sorry for the venting Jon.
No, I think you raise a good issue, though there are many ways of looking at it, and problems arise regardless of the form of polity in place.
John Wylie,
We all have had lousy church members and godless deacons and deviant staff members. However, and all of that being true, we are still called to follow as closely as possible the model of Scripture.
The Scripture does not tell us to take the road of least resistance. The Scripture actually tells us we will suffer. Don’t forget what God said of Paul and His intentions for Paul during his Kingdom building ministry.
Acts 9:16 “I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
I agree brother. I just believe that there is a better biblical case for the elder form of government. But I want you to know CB I always have respect for your insights.
I rather think that it is a strength overall and in the long haul.
Except this:
Nothing, repeat, nothing in the SBC Constitution and By-laws requires that a church agree with the BFM2K.
Nothing.
Article III:
Article III. Membership: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of missionary Baptist churches cooperating with the Convention as follows:
1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention’s work during the fiscal year preceding.
2. One (1) additional messenger from each such church for every two hundred and fifty (250) members; or for each $250.00 paid to the work of the Convention during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting.
3. The messengers shall be appointed and certified by the churches to the Convention, but no church may appoint more than ten (10).
4. Each messenger shall be a member of the church by which he is appointed.
The withdrawal of fellowship from churches affirming homosexual behavior is based on this point. Not on their departure from the BFM2K.
So it’s a moot point, entirely, because the SBC itself has never voted that member churches must be in agreement with the BFM2K. Now, there are state conventions and associations that may have that requirement, but the SBC does not mandate that.
To get to “disciplining churches that are out of step with the BFM2K” you have to take quite a few steps from “sympathetic with the work.”
Now, if you were being funded by NAMB/IMB/or whomever where your cash came from the Cooperative Program, that’s another story. But your average big church isn’t.
Great point Doug.
I don’t think it is moot. It may be far below the threshold level where anyone except bloggers care but the SBC in session has voted to cease receiving money, effectively to withdraw from or expel, a church. On what basis did they do so?
De facto the BFM is what is considered to be the standard.
William,
Messengers can vote for any reason under the sun to exclude a church. As it happens, sufficient deviation from the BF&M would merit exclusion. This does not qualify as sufficient deviation – if it even qualifies as deviation. But just because a church does not adhere to the BF&M does not mean it is automatically subject to be considered for removal.
I do not disagree and, manifestly, the SBC at the national level has not chosen to pursue many expulsions. I though it interesting to ponder if the ecclesiology of a church could be non-baptistic enough to merit examination.
“Messengers can vote for any reason under the sun to exclude a church.”
That is not necessarily the case.
If the Chair rules the reason out of order, the Messengers cannot vote to exclude a church, no matter if the sun is shinning very hot and the Messengers are extremely aware they are under it or if the sun has set and the messengers are meeting in the dark of night.
William,
When we voted to cease fellowship with the NC churches over homosexuality are you sure the BF&M was used as the standard? Did not the maker of the motion use the Scripture as his standard during his presentation of the motion? Did not the committee do the same?
I don’t know about NC.
John Wylie asks above: “If an SBC church has an elder led government where the elders are elected by the congregation, do you believe they are complying with the BFM?”
Sure. I may look askance at an elder arrangement but clearly that is democratic and the church congregationally governed.
Thanks William.
John Wylie,
I need to apologize to you and thank William. I failed to answer your specific question because I went on my usual rant about the BF&M.
I thank William for answering your question, giving me, as I read his answer, to realize my foolishness and rude behavior toward you.
BTW, my answer is the same as his; Sure.
No need to apologize brother. Although I really only know you through this blog, I have the utmost respect for you. Are you going to the SBC in Houston this year?
I will be in Houston if the Lord gives me life and health. Although this year I will be just another working stiff and not one of the organizers and vote fixers of the “Elect Dave Miller SBC Boss” campaign again like last year.
I will have to leave that job to the LifeWay crowd completely this year, but I am sure they can handle it. I heard that Tim Rogers and Ben Cole were teaming up to take my place in the strategy room 😉
Seriously, your comment humbles me and I thank you although I do not deserve it.
Come by the Brewton-Parker College booth. I will be greatly honored to meet you in person.
Yes Sir I will brother.
If William’s question about whether elder-RULED churches discord with BFM2K is legitimate, there is a much, MUCH larger question which should be considered:
Do deacon-RULED churches fall outside the parameters of BFM2K?
William’s question could effectively be re-framed to look something like this:
My Traditionalist colleagues and friends, there are thousands of deacon-RULED SBC congregations. Are these churches that are clearly not in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message Statement?
Why or why not?
If so, what, if anything, should be done about it?
OK, fine. Point me to a single deacon ruled church where the deacons are a self-perpetuating body and where the congregation has no vote on ministers. There may be some. I don’t know of any.
William,
I’m not particularly trying to be cantankerous here, but deacon-RULED churches are just that–deacon-RULED. No real “democracy” involved.
And that is a much greater problem in SBC churches than truly elder-ruled churches.
To be clear, I reject elder-RULED, deacon-RULED, and congregation-RULED church polity.
Sovereign King Jesus RULES, His Word is law, elders are charged with leading by humbly expoisiting the Word, and congregations are charged with “voting” in humble obedience to the Word.
No “democracy” involved.
Cantankerous is absolutely acceptable here and after a certain age it is to be expected.
I see your point (and would add that pastor-ruled churches should be added to your list of rejects). I just don’t see any churches that are formerly and structurally deacon ruled.
Randall Cofield,
Now that you have “ruled” out that which needs to be “ruled” out as to who “rules” local churches and established the Singular One who is to “Rule;” Tell us the form of governance that you believe the Singular “Ruler” has prescribed in His Word for His local churches to govern themselves under His “Rulership.”
BTW, William Thornton is right. Pastor-“ruled” churches should be “ruled” out also among those you have “ruled” out.
C. B. Scott,
I thought I already did that, but I’ll be happy to repeat it …
*********************
Sovereign King Jesus RULES, His Word is law, elders are charged with leading by humbly expoisiting the Word, and congregations are charged with “voting” in humble obedience to the Word.
No “democracy” involved.
I really do not think biblical church polity is any more complicated than that.
C. B. Scott,
Well, I thought I already did that, but I’ll be happy to repeat it …
*********************
Sovereign King Jesus RULES, His Word is law, elders are charged with leading by humbly expoisiting the Word, and congregations are charged with “voting” in humble obedience to the Word.
No “democracy” involved.
I really do not think biblical church polity is any more complicated than that.
Sorry for the double-post….
But….I don’t think it can be stated to often. 🙂
Randall Cofield,
I shall borrow part of a song line from Lionel Richie:
“You Are Once, Twice, Three Times The Commenter . . .
On A Blog. Oh Yes Yooou Arrrre . . . ”
So, do I take it “twice” and “solidly” that Elders, Pastors, Shepherds, Bishops lead in oversight of the flock of God assigned them by the Chief Shepherd without being a lord over them, but as an example to them under the biblical governance afforded them by God’s Word for those who would seek the position of a Bishop, which is a good thing to desire if one in submission to God’s call and biblical qualifications?
Evidently, you were, in fact, happy to repeat it!
Randall,
Where in the Bible does it tell us which brand of central air units to buy, and how many air units to buy for the sanctuary????
Thus, someone has to decide such things…do they not?
Elders decide? or, congregation decides?
David
David,
Maybe neither. Deacons were appointed so that elders could:
…”devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
(Acts 6:4 ESV)
Picking out the ac units should be a function of the diaconate. Elders are to provide the spiritual leadership and oversight.
Les
The Maintenance Committee should recommend to the congregation what unit and how many units should be bought, and then the congregation can vote on purchasing something that expensive. The Deacons should not be the ones, who decide such a matter for a Church.
David
C. B. Scott: Umm…yeah…I think so.
Dave Miller: Apparently so.
volfan007: That’s a stewardship issue. Shouldn’t be hard to work it out from there.
David, perhaps we have a different view of the role of the deacon. I see the diaconate serving as overseers of the benevolent ministry, within and outside the congregation. They would naturally then oversee the finances of the church and be charged with that responsibility. all this frees the elders to oversee the flock spiritually and lead.
But I understand a pure congregationalist would have the members vote on which bid to take, etc on the A/C. Just seems like an unneeded step if the congregation has prior entrusted wise and spiritual men as deacons with such tasks. i.e. here is the cashbox. Spend wisely.
Besides, in larger churches would the members really vote on such an expenditure? I don’t know.
Have a blessed evening.
What percentage of, or which decisions, must the congregation vote on to be considered congregational?
Are committee-led churches in compliance with the BFM?
Are deacon-led churches in compliance with the BFM?
How about deacon-ruled churches?
Couldn’t the same question be asked of committee-led and deacon-led/ruled SBC churches?
I think you are evading the point here. In a church where the congregation is formally and legally removed from power, even if the authority (in the case cited an elder body) allows by informal and non-legal covenant some congregational voting, the polity is clearly not congregational.
Many SBC churches operate by committee or deacons and the congregation is involved in governance only in voting for the committee or deacons, pastor and staff, budget, property purchase, building contracts, etc. These are congregationally ruled even if votes are effectively pro forma. We have seen a number of such congregations achieve grassroots leadership change when it was deemed necessary.
Would you call your present church congregational if a proposal were passed to change the legal documents of the church to transfer all power to a small body or committee of self perpetuating deacons or elders? Would you be comfortable with the same if the proposal included a provision that provided that by informal covenant the congregation would still be involved in some votes and would be free to recommend to the ruling body whatever they wish?
Hello William,
I don’t believe I am missing the point. And just so you know, I am not defending the Village Church. I am asking clarifying questions so, honestly, it is really not about what I am comfortable with. My first question is the most important since it’s never really answered in these debates since they often deteriorate into debates over theology of which should not be spoken. 🙂
So I ask you, the original poster, and anyone else: What percentage of, or which decisions, must the congregation vote on to be considered congregational?
I don’t recall elder-ruled ecclesiology to be much of an issue until a particular theology became more noticeable in the SBC. Which is why I curiously asked the other questions.
A friend/acquaintance who used to be on staff at a prominent local SBC church once told me how Dr. X, pastor of this church, ruled the church. The congregation might have had some votes. Even in the staff/committee meetings Dr. X’s word was THE authority. He did want he wanted.
Things like that make me wonder why no one seems to have cared for years about churches who are deacon-led/ruled or committed-led/ruled in light of the BFM.
Now I’ve got to go help a brother move and get these rusty muscles moving. 🙂
There is a difference, quite substantial, in de facto deacon/pastor/elder/clique ruled churches and de jure deacon//pastor/elder/clique. I know many of the former, few of the latter.
As to your very reasonable question: “What percentage of, or which decisions, must the congregation vote on to be considered congregational?”
A very small percentage, perhaps only to vote on a new pastor, staff, deacons and committees, budget, property transfers, and major contracts. Perhaps only two votes: To elect those who serve on a governing body (pastor/elders/deacons/trustees) and to remove those who so serve.
A church where a triumvirate composed of pastor/pastor’s wife/deacon chairman who had authority to make ALL decisions is congregational, so long as members could vote to remove and replace any or all of them. Think of it. A ruling majority of the pastor and his wife.
A church where a self-perpetuating elder body had the ultimate authority to make any and all decisions, and thus having absolute firewall between them and the congregation is not congregational.
The church in question here looks a lot like that.
I would not pretend to know the %. But I will say this. I am a ruling elder in a PCA church and per the Book of Church Order, which among other things codifies how business is conducted in PCA congregations, does include the congregation by way of vote in a number of things. These include the calling and dismissal of a Teaching Elder (pastor) and the nomination and election of elders and deacons. There is also a provision where a ruling elder of deacon can essentially be recalled. The congregation can also call for a congregational meeting by way of certain provisions.
So even though the PCA polity is not considered “congregational,” there are parts of the governance that is congregational.
I’ll add that it seems to me that any church that has zero input and vote for leadership, i.e. where the governing elder board (or deacon board if there is such) is self appointing and self perpetuating, is a dangerous way of conducting itself.
We are all sinners, even church leaders (surprise!). Remember the quote by Lord Acton, “”Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” I think he might have been onto something.
$0.02
Let me add, that though the PCA system of government is not perfect and in some, maybe many, cases there is abuse of authority, there is a system set up to ensure some measure of separation of powers.
The session makes the majority of decisions. But see my earlier comment where the congregation makes some decisions too. But at any time, a member or group of member can appeal the session’s decision to the presbytery who’s decision can be appealed to the entire general assembly. So there is no absolute authority by local leaders. Check and balance.
As per historian Merle D’Aubigne, a certain Reformer was “the virtual founder of America.” The idea of separation of powers and such.
“I don’t recall elder-ruled ecclesiology to be much of an issue until a particular theology became more noticeable in the SBC.”
Mark,
To a degree your statement is correct, but not entirely. Some were writing and teaching regarding to a Baptist ecclesiology before debates about soteriology arose. Such men as: Dr. Gerald Cowen, Dr. Greg Lawson, Dr. Reggie Ogea, Dr. Mark Tolbert and others have taught and/or written regarding ecclesiology.
However, due to Southern Baptist seminary administrators taking for granted that the doctrine of ecclesiology was generally understood by Baptist students coming into their institutions, or because of many Southern Baptist seminary administrators being ignorant in regard to the doctrine of ecclesiology themselves, they did not focus on it in curriculum development.
Obviously, that has proven to be a huge failure in the seminaries owned by Southern Baptists. Even Millard Erickson’s systematic theology which is so well traveled among SBC seminaries references the great lack of study and teaching directed toward the doctrine of the church among Christians.
Again, I make this distinction.
If the church body and the elders disagree on a certain course, what happens. If the elders proceed, you are elder ruled.
If the elders yield to the congregation, you are congregational.
I am shocked that CB let the SEC snide comments go unchallenged! A NCAA ruled by the SEC is only a NCAA that cannot compete with the SEC! It is not ruled by in reality but rather dominated by! 🙂
Back to the post- great discussion here! Best in a long while. I also find it odd that Chandler with their lose SBC affiliation is now allowed to influence SBC material. Obviously a few see no problem here.
Above should be “…loose affiliation…”
This is an interesting discussion. I make three final points:
1. Frank Page’s informal Calvinist study committee needs to offer some observations and perhaps some guidance on the question. They should have discussed it publicly.
2. I don’t see this aspect of church polity triggering any action at the state or SBC level, mainly because of the complications of having a committee examine the church documents and practices. There may be a stray association or two where the issue becomes contentious but I’d bet that a concerned DOM would just meddle privately with the church in question.
3. Some pastors in the SBC are keen on elder rule; therefore, no church can afford not to know the lay of the land on this stuff.
I think the term “through democratic processes” is nebulous enough to include a broad range of methods. In other words, it doesn’t specify who gets to vote in the democratic process, whether it be the whole congregation or a select few. I haven’t studied this in depth and don’t have a dog in the fight one way or the other. I do note that the church John Piper just stepped down from is elder led and also took a vote of the entire congregation for the new pastor.
It has been said before but it deserves to be said again that, while the BFM was crafted to be a fairly wide net, ambiguously allowing for many variations of the different doctrines that Baptists have historically held, it is still not an absolute standard bearer by which churches must mutually agree to fellowship only within the bounds of the BFM. Jim Pemberton notes that “democratic processes” itself is an extremely nebulous term. There are other parts of the BFM where it could easily appear many good standing SBC churches are out of bounds:
Article 7, Baptism. This discussion I think was held on this site and other blogs just a few months ago. Many churches don’t require attenders to undergo believers’ baptism and/or join that particular church before they take Lord’s Supper, but leave the table open for all who profess faith in Christ. But the BFM in its most literal sense prescribes a closed communion.
Article 8, The Lord’s Day. Many churches with multiple services have Saturday night worship where they encourage some of their members not to worship on Sunday as prescribed by the BFM.
These are just two. I have not seen this book before but this appears to go into great detail on how Baptists agree and differ on all of the other articles of the BFM: http://www.amazon.com/The-Baptist-Faith-Message-2000/dp/0742551032/ref=pd_cp_b_0
Some random thoughts:
1. The BFM says “democratic processes.” That gives a wide birth to all sorts of arrangements.
2. I think that the churches that were not allowed to seat messengers at the convention or whose gifts were refused over the homosexual related issues were treated that way on the basis of the SBC constitution. The SBC actually amended its constitution (or bylaws) to address this issue. The SBC did not simply amend the BFM to address the issue. So the BFM was not the device used to “exclude” a church.
3. I find it interesting that some who argue for what they consider to be a more strict “biblical” model often go to churches that have a committee system. I don’t mind committees, but of all the options discussed, that is the least biblical. We find pastor, bishop, elder, deacon in the Bible. Committee is no where in the Bible.
4. Any church that has self appointed elders that are self perpetuating that decides things the congregation doesn’t want is going to find itself perpetually small and out of business. I tip my hat to Darwinism on this one.
5. I cannot speak for how other churches do things. We have elders. They are “confirmed or not confirmed” by the congregation in a secret ballot vote. To become an elder, names are requested from the congregation, names are suggested by the elders. The elders discuss those persons, what is known about them, how long they have been Christians, how long they have been in the church, whether they have any known personal or familial problems, whether they have any known black marks in their business or vocational lives, and whether the meet the qualifications for elders in the NT. Then the pastor takes the men through a 2 or 3 month study. Then the elders vote by secret ballot on whether to recommend the persons as elders to the congregation. Then the congregation votes whether to accept or reject the recommendation by secret ballot. A person has the option of putting their name on the ballot and writing any concerns they may have. Then the elders review the ballots. This allows the elders to see, for example, if there may be a few in the congregation who know something about the person that has been written on the ballot as a basis for objection. If the percentage is high and there are no noticeable problems, the elders vote again whether to accept the person as an elder. It takes a 100% vote of the elders to recommend the person to become an elder to the congregation, and it takes a 100% vote of the elders for a person to become an elder after the congregation has also approved the person.
We feel this method gives everyone some input, and that it allows for a serious, deliberate consideration of the candidate. It also allows for people to object, and it allows for them to object anonymously or with their name attached.
6. A elder can be removed with a 2/3 vote of the elders by secret ballot. This means that the pastor could be removed this way. I cannot imagine having a congregational vote to remove a pastor. Any decision to remove a pastor would be divisive, but an open vote with discussion in the entire congregation is about the worst thing I can think of for the peace and health of a church. I can find no NT instruction in that regard. Dismissing an elder would take a serious offense, something that would need to be discussed in a more deliberative setting, and not in a popular setting, especially by people who probably don’t have the facts necessary to make an informed decision, and to provide them the facts might be excruciatingly personal and unwise. Also, the 2/3 requirement is less than the 100% because there is always going to be “loyalty” or friendship factor that might cause someone to vote “no.” Also, would you want to keep an elder when 2/3rds of his fellow elders don’t want him around?
7. Politics is a primary reason many adults I meet do not like getting involved in the business or organization of the church. I am for any arrangement that a church wants to live by. But I feel that Baptist churches, in particular, need to de-politicize but maintain congregational involvement in church affairs as much as possible. An open mic business meeting where people are allowed to advocate for this or that thing is very disruptive to the health of a congregation, in my opinion. In such situations, we are basically giving the mic to the people who are often the loudest, most uninformed and most opinionated people in the church. That is not good for the health of the church.
Louis
So would you describe your church as elder ruled, the elders both recommending new elders and then confirming them if they so choose, while the congregation’s votes maybe said to be merely a straw poll, not binding?
William:
I would not describe it as “elder ruled” because the congregation has a significant amount of “ruling.”
Even though the elders make the final decision, since the person has already been recommended by the elders unanimously to the congregation, the only thing the elders would be doing is assessing information obtained from the congregation. The purpose is not to override the congregation.
I don’t see that as elders “ruling” as much as elders being in a position to weigh and consider objections from the congregation that were gleaned during the vote.
We would not vote to make someone an elder whom the congregation said “no” to. Of course, we would not recommend anyone whom the congregation did not love and respect in the first place.
The difference here may be that the minority in our congregation has great power.
For example, I can’t imagine the elders ever affirming an elder that got only 51% of the vote of the congregation. That would mean that 49% did not like him. And using a fixed percentage requirement would be arbitrary. The point is to process any information obtained from the congregation.
What if a couple of people in the congregation knew the elder in the business world, and they voted “no” and put the reasons down on the ballot? Let’s say the reasons were something ethical or something close to it in the way this person ran his business. It would be the kind of thing that the vast majority of the congregation did not know.
The elders then followed up with the people who voted “no”, gathered facts, and then met with the candidate.
In a traditional setting since the guy got 50% plus 1 by congregational vote, he’s an elder.
But in our setting, if information surfaces during the congregational vote, the elders have an opportunity to process that.
Some might call that “elder rule,” but the sense of it is anything but that.
Also, forgot to mention that the congregation votes on all pastoral staff, building new buildings, taking on debt, planting new congregations, changes to doctrinal statement – all major decisions.
But some might object because we reserve this right for the elders to process informaton obtained during a congregational vote.
The way this has worked out in practice is that the congregation has never shown a significant negative vote to any unanimous elder recommendation. We always have meetings to explain the recommended action and to allow for questions and answers.
The votes are never held at those meetings, but on Sunday morning when the most people possible are there to vote.
One time we had a proposed pastoral staff position voted on. The elders unanimously recommended the person. The congregation voted in the low 80%s. We considered the vote and the feedback from the vote (and the objections) and decided there was too many valid concerns raised by people on the ballots.
That was not an act of elders ruling, but an act of sensing that there were more substantial objections and a number of people objecting than we anticipated. For that reason, we did not go forward.
Hope this makes sense.
Thanks for the question.
“The BFM says “democratic processes.” That gives a wide birth to all sorts of arrangements.”
You’ve got that right Louis! There’s so much wiggle room in the BFM2000 that the SBC is quickly becoming 2-miles wide and 1-inch deep.
Max, the BFM2000 is “quickly becoming 2-miles wide and 1-inch deep”? Has is changed since 2000? 🙂
If the SBC is going to dis-fellowship those who are not “congregational enough,” (whatever that means), then they must also disfellowship the 52% of SBC churches who reject the BF&M2K’s teaching on “close communion.” The BF&M2K argues, “[Baptism] Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” Yet, 52% of Southern Baptists do not practice “close communion.” https://sbcvoices.com/intriguing-lifeway-study-on-the-lords-supper-the-majority-are-ignoring-the-bfm/
Jared:
No one is going to disfellowship anyone.
A church can send messengers to the convention if they are in “friendly cooperation” (as defined in bylaws) with the convention.
The BFM is talked about on the SBC agency employee level. But the BFM has not been used to out a church.
“But the BFM has not been used to out a church.”
Louis,
This was the basis of my comment to William Thornton somewhere up in the thread.
I stated:
“When we voted to cease fellowship with the NC churches over homosexuality are you sure the BF&M was used as the standard? Did not the maker of the motion use the Scripture as his standard during his presentation of the motion? Did not the committee do the same?”
Louis,
Is that comment correct and do you remember the year that vote was taken?
I appreciate folks noting the similarity between a Deacon-led(/ruled) body and an Elder-led(/ruled) one. In honesty, a Staff-led body is a similar variation.
I’m a little surprised Louis didn’t address the difficulty of maintaining direct democracy institutionally as the size of the institution (or organism if you prefer) grows. It’s why the federal government is a representative-based republic. And why originally only the Representatives in the House were popularly elected from their district. Senators were selected by the state. President by electors.
I also agree that the Bible really provides very little direct support for popular voting as a decision making process. Throw lots? Yep. Insist that God gives you a king? Umm…not so much.
I don’t mind committees per se in the sense that teaching them how to make decisions is a worthy lesson in practical discipleship and leadership. Especially if the committee turns over like it ought to. But using the Jerusalem Council (or worse yet the Sanhedrin) as biblical support for committees seems a bit strained to me.
But it’s worth asking: what is the expected accountability relationship between the leaders of a church and the congregation? Might I suggest that the model that the priest is on a separate tier from the congregation is worn out and fraught with peril and is probably where our most Baptistic instincts cry “Trouble!” when we hear about an elder-led congregation.
But voting isn’t the same as casting lots. It is susceptible to influence. And strong personalities don’t necessarily prove the presence of an imprimatur of God’s guiding hand of wisdom and blessing. I actually GREATLY prefer casting lots to voting. But in the ole U.S. of A.–especially among traditionally anti-gambling Baptists–my view is considered quaint. After all, if God wouldn’t put his thumb on the lottery to benefit his people, why would he put his thumb on the casting of lots for the benefit of his people?
Except that was how Judas Iscariot was replaced among other biblical examples. But getting people involved in the decision-making process? You mean the 6-year-old that was baptized last week? Pardon me for being skeptical of the wisdom of that approach. And I’ve seen otherwise quite reasonable human beings who believe that every business meeting is their special opportunity to prove God’s calling on their lives to be a Devil’s advocate by challenging every line-item in the budget.
I dislike business meetings almost as much as I disliked accounting to my roommates in college how I calculated the monthly rent/expenses division. Especially when they got the arithmetic right and I didn’t…
The more I consider the matter the more I believe the Congregational approach to church government is the most beneficial for everyone. It seems that was the practice early on in the church. It also safeguards the church from overbearing personalities and minority agendas.