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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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;… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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.