When historians turn to consider the early twenty-first century in Southern Baptist life, a number of momentous events from our annual meeting will figure prominently. The revision of the Baptist Faith & Message in the year 2000 marked a turning-point in the history of our confession of faith and will be remembered as a milestone in the story of the Conservative Resurgence. The 2006 election of Frank Page later propelled him into his current role at the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the meeting (its prelude and its aftermath) launched Southern Baptist blogging. The 2012 election of Fred Luter as the first African-American President of the Southern Baptist Convention stands head and shoulders above all of these other historical events as a key element of a story that reaches all the way back to the convention’s formation in 1845.
But something else has been happening in the Southern Baptist Convention—something that has not appeared on the agenda of any of our annual meetings—that will also figure prominently in our recollection of this moment in our history. This is the era when Southern Baptist churches in large numbers began to change the governance of our churches. This is the day of the “elder-led” movement in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Causes
The previous form of church government—congregationalism with varying levels of pastoral leadership and responsibility—held sway over Southern Baptist life for a century and a half. What factors have led to its precipitous decline?
The rise of the New Calvinism is one important factor. Groups like Mark Dever’s IX Marks have championed the transition to elder governance as an important means to increasing church health. Other groups among the New Calvinists, even if they have not been as focused on ecclesiology as Dever’s group has been, have lifted up a number of Presbyterian or presbyterial voices as heroes to younger Southern Baptists. The correlation between the elder-led movement and the New Calvinism is tight (although Southern Baptists from more than one soteriological viewpoint are embracing the elder-led option), and when the soteriological pendulum swings the other way, the most lasting impact remaining upon Southern Baptist churches by this movement may very well be the structural changes that it made to local churches by means of the spread of elder-led polity.
The sorry state of congregationalism in many of our Southern Baptist churches is another key factor. For decades nobody in the Southern Baptist convention SAID anything nice about congregational business meetings, and in too many dysfunctional churches it had been at least that long since anyone had DONE anything nice in a congregational business meeting. Furthermore, congregationalism had, in too many places, ceased to enjoin entire congregations in the search for God’s will and had become the vehicle by which mean-spirited tyrants—too many of them unconverted—lurked in the shadows and dominated the church as covert power brokers. I previously wrote about this phenomenon in my blog post Pseudo-Congregationalism Is from Satan. Most of those who experienced these abuses first-hand, plus a number of those who heard the stories, were ready for an alternative.
A related matter is the weak and sorry state of the office of pastor/elder/overseer in so many of these dysfunctional churches. Bad congregationalism had eviscerated and emasculated many a minister of the gospel. A sizable number both in pulpit and in pew knew that something was amiss in an arrangement in which the pastor is little more than a hired speaker forced to cower in his corner in the meeting house.
A final factor to consider is the incongruity between what we as Southern Baptists said about the office of deacon versus what our deacons actually did. Much of the Southern Baptist preaching about deacons in the last half of the twentieth century would meet the formal definition of a riv (a literary device from the Old Testament prophetic books in which God formally airs his grievances against His people). The comparison and contrast between deacons and elders has been a mainstay in this conversation as Southern Baptist churches have considered the change to elder-led polity.
Objectives
What have the advocates for elder-led polity hoped to accomplish for Southern Baptist churches? Some, before enumerating perceived pragmatic benefits, have simply advanced the case that elder-led governance is the most biblical form of church polity. Southern Baptist congregationalism was made much more vulnerable to these attacks by the abandonment of the word “elder” in Southern Baptist parlance near the beginning of the twentieth century. Since the word “elder” is spread throughout the pages of the New Testament, and since Southern Baptists, having chosen the word “pastor” to the exclusion of “elder,” appeared to the casual observer not to have any such thing as an elder, the moment was ripe to make the case that the “People of the Book” had abandoned something biblical.
Proponents of this change in church polity also reminded Southern Baptists that the elder-led pattern can be entirely compatible with Baptist belief, and indeed, can be identified in Baptist history. Particularly among Particular Baptists, plural-elder congregationalism appears in church minutes and confessions of faith as the practice of many early Baptists.
Among the pragmatic appeals was the suggestion that a transition to the elder-led pattern would liberate pastors from the tyranny of loneliness in an overwhelming task. “God never intended for one man to try to do this job alone” is a winsome slogan to the ears of a group of people who, in survey after survey, are highly isolated and overburdened. To impanel a board of elders is to call for backup, so they say.
Another winsome feature spanned both pragmatism and biblical fidelity: the prospect of elevating the station and power of pastors/elders/overseers in the church. Pastors in beleaguered situations knew that they should have more power to lead and they wanted that power, confident that the church would operate more smoothly and accomplish more ministry once their congregational roadblocks were out of the way.
Causes for Concern
As someone who despises so much of what has passed for congregationalism in Southern Baptist churches, I welcome and embrace the new openness in our churches to revisit our polity and make it better and more biblical. Also, I acknowledge that some of the more careful and faithful implementations of polities more dependent upon the leadership of pastors/elder/overseers in the local church have been both a success and a blessing. Nevertheless, in the broader movement, I see some causes for concern.
-
The Lapse into Presbyterianism: I’ve been blogging for a long time now, and I hope that my readers recognize me as a cordial interlocutor with my more Calvinistic brethren. Specifically, I am not among those who reflexively cry “Presbyterian!” at every juncture when someone discusses his soteriological convictions. Permit me to air my view that the elder-led approach, if done carefully and well, can be done in a way that is more Baptist than Presbyterian. I am no opponent of these implementations.
And yet, although everything I read from the hand of Mark Dever is unmistakably Baptist, when local churches put down their copies of Nine Marks of a Healthy Church and go about implementing what they think they’ve read, the results sometimes look a lot more like John Knox than Mark Dever. Some of the individual points listed below will serve as the specific indicators of this diagnosis, but I’m going to leave it unsubstantiated for the moment in order to free this space in the essay to speak about the general phenomenon.
A lot of interaction is taking place at this moment between Southern Baptists and Presbyterians or quasi-Presbyterians. Some of this is due to the facts of American Evangelicalism; some of it is due to the unique influence of men like Al Mohler. At least some movement of pastors between Southern Baptist life and Presbyterian life is taking place—Southern Baptist pastors becoming Presbyterian and Presbyterian pastors becoming Southern Baptist. In saying this I am not alleging a wrong (Southern Baptists ought to talk to more people than just Southern Baptists) so much as I am observing a trend.
Because of this interaction and familiarity with Presbyterian life, when local Southern Baptist pastors start out to implement elder leadership in their local churches, the Presbyterian model may be more familiar to them, being as widespread as it is, than is the subtle nuance of the more Baptistic varieties of elder-led polity. Indeed, whether unwittingly or deliberately, “elder led” often becomes something more like “elder ruled.”
Since the move to elder-led polity is indisputably a movement TOWARD Presbyterianism, it is perhaps not surprising that the move sometimes fails to stop short of full-fledged Presbyterian polity.
-
The Cleavage of the Presbytery: Although a less-noble author might have used that subtitle for a condemnation of immodest female preachers, I’m talking about the unsettling tendency among elder-led Southern Baptists to set aside our unified presbytery for a divided presbytery. A divided presbytery has a bifurcation between preaching elders and lay elders. A unified presbytery holds all pastors/elders/overseers to be occupants of the same biblical office without distinction. After all, the New Testament does not give qualifications for two kinds of elders, does not enshrine terminology for two kinds of elders, and does not assign tasks to two kinds of elders. A misreading of I Timothy 5:17 lies at the root of the error of a divided presbytery.
I’ve spoken with Mark Dever about this topic (although he may not remember and probably doesn’t have any idea who I am). He affirms a unified presbytery and does not agree with the bifurcation of preaching elders and lay elders that is a prominent feature of the Presbyterian system. And yet, is the bifurcation of staff elders and non-staff elders not a bifurcation just the same? Doesn’t it appear important to the IX Marks system that some of the elders be people who are not paid at all? And yet, doesn’t I Timothy 5:17 seem to suggest that all of the elders are paid something, just not all the same thing?
If a careful, conscientiously Baptist, elder-led Southern Baptist church of the new type were suddenly to receive a windfall and were able to provide full-time income to all of its elders, would it feel compelled to go out and elect more elders, just to make sure that at least some of the elders were non-staff? I think a good many of them would. Although there is a strong, biblical case to use the term “elder” to refer to pastors/elders/overseers, and although there is a strong, biblical case to permit multiple elders to serve in a single congregation, where is the biblical case for insisting that some of these elders be unremunerated by the church, or for making any cleavage between different subcategories of elders?
As a final word of clarification, if straitened financial circumstances cause one or more (or ALL) of a church’s pastors/elders/overseers to go unpaid, I have no problem with that. I become concerned when the choice to have unpaid elders is strategic rather than circumstantial.
-
The Demotion of Pastors: Another remarkable feature of this movement is related to the insistence upon non-staff elders. In many of the congregations that are adopting elder leadership, pastors other than the top pastor in the organization chart—men we might refer to as “Associate Pastor” or “Assistant Pastor” in the traditional parlance—are being excluded entirely from the elder board. And so, in selecting elders, these congregations are passing right over men who have already been ordained into the pastor/elder/overseer ministry, have trained and have been credentialed, and are serving in the role of pastor/elder/overseer in that local congregation. The congregation is passing over these men and are elevating onto elder boards laypeople from the congregation.
I had a recent conversation with a young man being called to one of these churches. After talking with me, he approached the lead pastor of the congregation and asked, “Hey, if I’m the Youth Pastor, and if pastors, elders, and overseers are all the same thing biblically, then why don’t I get to come to the elders’ meetings?” The lead pastor replied, “Wow! I hadn’t thought of that. I just read IX Marks of a Healthy Church, thought it sounded good, and started implementing it here as best I could, but I never considered that other staff pastors might need to be elders. We probably ought to change your job title to take the word ‘Pastor’ out of it.”
As an editorial note, it is remarkable to me that a movement holding out the promise to elevate lead pastors out of situations of bad congregationalism—situations that did not accord to them the rightful and biblical respect and leadership role that pertained to them—would then be used by lead pastors to deny the rightful and biblical respect and leadership role that pertains to other pastors in the congregation. Every pastor ought to be considered a full-fledged elder in our congregations. Indeed, ONLY pastors ought to be considered elders in our congregations.
-
The Dismissal of Pastors: I know of two pastor-friends in recent months who have been fired by elders whom they themselves installed into the office of elder while the pastors were trying to transition the churches to elder leadership. In case you missed what happened there, these pastors (a) decided to adopt the elder-led model, (b) hand-picked leading laypersons in the congregation to serve as elders, (c) saw to their election as elders in the congregation, and (d) were promptly sent packing by the elders they had selected. In both cases there was no congregational vote involved (unless I’ve somehow misunderstood).
I asked one of them, “If you hadn’t made those guys elders at your church do you think they would have done this or even COULD have done this to you?” The answer? No.
History guys should stick to talking about the past and should avoid prognostication about the future, but I’m going to go there: I predict that the stories of bad Presbyterianism that will come out of this new polity in Southern Baptist churches will make the old stories of bad congregationalism look like a church picnic. Why? Because the selfsame people who did so much damage through the congregational system will be the very ones who worm their way into the local presbytery. You think they were formidable when they held no official position at all? You think they were formidable when they were deacons? Wait until you encounter them as constitutionally empowered ruling elders of the congregation!
Of course, a great many of the churches making this transition are more fortunate for now. After all, a great many pastors will pick people to serve as elders who will not, in fact, turn around and fire them. But this is the rosiest season for the elder-led movement—the season in which first-generation elder-led pastors get to serve with the elders that they have picked for themselves. The test of the movement will come after a few pastoral transitions, once pastors are coming into service alongside a PREDECESSOR’s hand-picked elder board.
Proposed Solution
Those who are exploring the biblical role of the elder in Southern Baptist life should take the following biblical steps if they choose to implement elder leadership in their churches:
- Extend the office of elder to all pastors, since biblically the pastor, the elder, and the overseer are the same person.
- Restrict the office of elder to only pastors, for the same reason.
- Protect the authority of the voting congregation to select its own pastors/elders/overseers.
- Make it the goal of the congregation to pay all of its pastors/elders/overseers at least something.
- Require all pastors/elders/overseers to do at least some work at preaching and teaching.
- Make it the goal of the congregation to pay more to those pastors/elders/overseers who work harder at preaching and teaching.
- Charge pastors/elders/overseers to keep the congregation informed and to build congregational consensus behind key decisions.
If the elevation of pastors/elders/overseers in Southern Baptist churches will take place along these lines, it can be an opportunity for us to revisit our polity and strengthen it, making our churches healthier and more effective in the accomplishment of our mission.
Amen and Amen. Bart, I think it would be useful for many of us to see a broader discussion about Deacons, their place, and their qualifications.
Steve in Montana
Thanks, Steve! In Montana, Deacons should (among other things) put the rock salt on the driveway in the winter (September – May).
We were on a mission trip in Missoula, Montana in 2009, in June. It snowed one morning – didn’t stick but it did snow in June.
Glory! Amen! And I have three who don’t mind shoveling the walk.
Steve in Montana
Bart – excellent points. I have struggled with all of these in our attempt to define polity in our church. I believe a plurality of elders presents a foundation for accountability and continuity in leadership in those cases when a pastor vacates his position either via another church or passes away. It provides opportunities for qualified men to lead in the church and be given the platform to do so openly.
2 Thoughts in response –
1.) I believe Josh Smith has a great model to follow at MBBC. All of his staff pastors serve on the Elder body. I believe this suffices several of your criteria for continuing discussion. We intend to follow this model as our church grows and ordains more Elders. All of our Elders will be expected to teach the corporate body in some way – preaching, large-group discipleship, Elder-led prayer, etc. If a man is unable to teach publicly, I believe he is therefore unqualified for Biblical Eldership.
2.) The Elder-led polity must be undergirded by Deacons. The Biblical model gives 2 sets of qualifications. A man can not possess the qualifications of Elder without first possessing the qualifications of Deacon. I believe a healthy Elder-led church will have a healthy gathering of Deacons in service among its body.
While I don’t believe Elder-led polity is the ‘fix-all’ in churches, I do believe it provides a stronger foundation than the strong pastor model. There are plenty of strong pastors who are leading the church well, but who leads if something unexpected happens to the strong pastor? Elder leadership provides continuity in those instances and can protect the congregation from an absence (or worse, failure) of leadership.
My agreement with Josh Smith is so deep that he and I are authoring a chapter together (that was my decision) in a book about church polity. I agree with your points.
We at FBC Farmersville have an plural-elder-led congregational polity, if you’ll let me define what that means. 🙂 That is, we have three pastors on our staff. All are treated as my peers. I am the lead pastor, so there’s not perfect equality in assignments. But it is very much a primus inter pares situation. We meet (I guess that’s an elder meeting right there) and provide leadership to the congregation. We are, nevertheless, distinctively congregationalist in our polity. We have the support of a good undergirding body of Deacons.
We do not have any elders who are not on staff.
Our change to this style of polity required no changes at all. It all came about simply in the way that I, as the Lead Pastor, began to relate to my colleagues.
Love that model and your implementation of it. I would imagine that most attempts at Elder polity in SBC churches would follow this model. We did at my previous church. The congregation still had voting rights over major decisions, but because I was a single-staff pastor, we created the office of Elder as laymen who were qualified as pastors but did not feel a vocational call to pastor. We met together regularly, made decisions about the vision, mission and affairs of the church, gathered feedback and opinions of the congregation and brought items to conference upon which to vote.
I think there are places where this model works well without becoming Presbyterianism. It requires the Elders to involve the congregation on multiple levels without compromising the vision of the church to impact its community and advance the Kingdom in the world. Keep the congregation involved in selecting, following and submitting to Elders/Pastors and allow the Elders/Pastors the freedom to lead the church in step with their calling from the Lord.
We agree about so much, Stan, but as Baptists we are required to ignore our preponderant agreement and explore the depths of our disagreement until we anathematize one another. 🙂
In that spirit (!) I don’t see how someone is a pastor who isn’t called to pastor. If that person is serving your local congregation as a pastor/elder/overseer, then isn’t that vocational for them, as Christians have understood vocation? Is there New Testament justification, do you think, for there to be two different kinds of pastors/elders/overseers like this (staff and non-staff)?
Love your diplomacy, Bart. 🙂
Can you make a justification (NT or otherwise) of a strictly staff elder? Each of the Apostles were bivocational at one point or another and wouldn’t have solely depended on the church for their livelihood.
I appreciate the way that, in the spirit of our discussion, you have changed your first name on this comment. 🙂
I’m not arguing against bivocational ministry or even unpaid ministry that is based upon the exigencies of limited financial resources. There are going to be churches that can only afford to pay some of their elders. There are going to be churches that cannot afford to pay any of their elders. There are going to be churches that have plenty of money to pay all of their elders.
The question is, should that LAST category of churches—the one that has enough money to pay all of its elders—deliberately make an effort not to pay some of its elders? I think that runs contrary to all of the “workman is worthy of his hire” passages as well as against what can be reasonably inferred from I Timothy 5:17.
Furthermore, I would argue that churches in the SECOND category (those that pay some, but not all, of their elders) should reconsider their financial priorities if they are paying the band, the nursery workers, the custodians, etc., but have unpaid elders.
OK, that was my FIRST category, not my SECOND category. Sorry.
I agree with you that if the church has the means (circumstantial, as you put it), they should pay all of their elders. I’d be curious to know of a church that has non-staff elders who are paid and how the church determined the amount they are paid.
In our case at my previous church, we didn’t have the means. There were 3 “employees” on the payroll. Myself, a secretary and a contract music leader. Our 2 non-staff elders were not paid.
What if the church offers to pay the non-staff elder and he refuses to accept? Is that a viable solution to your proposition?
I’ve repented and changed my name 🙂
Reading through this I have to wonder if your concerns are more for Elder-ruled than Elder-led. In an Elder-led polity, it is still congregationalist, and as such the congregation affirms any and all elder candidates. It is not surprise given the history of terrible congregational polity and its abuses that men would seek to consolidate “power” to the elder office to correct perceived abuses. This pendulum swing will still be comprised of abuses because men are sinful, and the goal is pragmatic at heart, not biblical. For such men, 9Marks and other elder-led groups become their vehicle to get what they want.
The problem is not with elder-led proponents like 9Marks, who I do think hold a biblical view. The problem is also not with elder-led churches like the common single Pastor church. Yes, they’re elder-led too, they just have one instead of many. The problem is ultimately (I think) with people. Weak faith, weak discipleship, and a lack of progressing in holiness. If you have a congregation marked by divisiveness which causes a Pastor to move to a plurality of elders, and then someone is hired out of that culture without significant preaching and teaching, it doesn’t surprise me that elder would fire the elder who developed him. That’s also not congregationalism, and elder should not have unilateral authority to fire another. That is the job of the congregation.
I visited CHBC for a 9Marks Weekender and SBTS conference class last year. It really is remarkable to watch them and learn from them. They share all the struggles too, though, and not just the appearance of all being well. It’s a great example of congregational polity lead by a plurality of elders. The elders do not possess final authority. I cannot recommend it highly enough to anyone curious of what plural elder leadership looks like in a congregational polity.
1. I agree that those who are adopting an elder-led model would do well to visit CHBC and learn from Dever et al. I don’t now of anyone who does it a lot better than they do it.
2. Some of my concerns would apply equally well to the elder-led rather than the elder-ruled approach. I’ve tried to write primarily with those in mind who are shooting for elder-led rather than elder-ruled. In one sentence I think I actually wound up acknowledging that these are two different approaches. Let me give examples of how my concerns apply to the elder-led approach as well.
3. My concern about creating an unbiblical division between staff and non-staff elders is a concern that applies just as much to the elder-led phenomenon as to the elder-ruled phenomenon.
4. My concern about the exclusion of assistant or associate pastors from the meetings of elders and the governance of the church applies just as much to the elder-led phenomenon as to the elder-ruled phenomenon. Indeed, every instance of this with which I have had personal interaction has been an elder-led rather than an elder-ruled church.
5. My concerns about the dismissal of pastors would indeed apply more acutely to churches that are more elder-ruled. Churches that are careful to stop short of elder rule are, as you have noted, churches that will require a congregational vote in order to terminate a staff elder. I must note, however, that most forced terminations in ministry do not make it all the way to the congregational vote. Whether it is a deacon chair or an elder who is doing it, these situations usually involve some subgroup of lay-leadership who convince a pastor to leave voluntarily rather than to risk the vote.
Therefore, even in an elder-led situation, the risk of pastoral termination is higher. Elder groups are normally smaller in number than are deacon groups. An elder who wishes to see the lead pastor’s departure only has to convince a smaller number (in one case I considered, only one other man!) to go along with him for him to be able to pressure a pastor into resignation. Even if the congregation has the ultimate say in the matter, many a pastor will resign rather than appeal to the congregation.
3 and 4: With respect to any division between staff/non-staff (paid/unpaid) elders; there should not be any. An Elder’s qualifications do not rely on their paycheck. Though, their paycheck should rely on their qualifications. An elder is an elder is an elder. Any stratification is unbiblical. As you said, a lead pastor can provide leadership, but is a first among equals.
I am curious, in this discussion, how many SBC churches interpret the office of deacon. Do they use them as servants who perform tasks, or do they use them as elders who don’t teach? A leadership and shepherding vacuum exists, will it be filled biblically or not seems to be the question.
Great question about deacons, Nick. I would say that, in the midst of this reshuffling of Southern Baptist church polity, ideas about deacons span the gamut from those who have done away with the office of deacon altogether to those who have deacons who basically serve as lay elders.
Bart,
I would add that another by-product of what you have been discussing is also the alarming rate of the one-church (many locations) model that most of these elder-led churches follow as well. In those cases the “Lead Pastor (Elder)” or the “Senior Pastor (Elder)” has effectively become the bishop of said “one-church, many-locations.” This Episcopal government model is destroying local autonomous congregationalism and yet, we (SBC) are electing more and more of these “bishops” to lead positions in our denomination.
Nate,
I agree that these phenomena are often related, although I also know that a number of churches that do not regard themselves as elder-led are nonetheless multi-site churches. Like you, I have some concerns about this multi-site model, and they are indeed related to the idea that this may be the start of a movement that undermines local church autonomy in the long run.
In the short run, if this is only a short-run phenomenon, these campuses probably have no less autonomy than does a new church plant. The key question is whether the “home campus” is prepared at some point to divest itself of the new start and allow it to follow an independent future.
I believe this trend is massively less destructive than the trend in the mid 20th century to water down, if you will, ecclesiology for the sake of increased numbers. I’m not bashing congregationalism or promoting a strict elder-rule structure. However, I believe the SBC has certainly had bigger wrinkles within the last 100 years to iron out than a rise in elder-rule. I think this recent rise in the “new Calvinists” has brought balance to the SBC, and made things less about teaching kids the ABC’s in VBS or members about the the Cooperative Program, and more about a biblical approach to ministry. Elder-rule is a small fish to fry in light of other concerns. A swing to the right is not all to harmful, nor is it a mudslide into Presbyterianism.
As for this from above: “Other groups among the New Calvinists, even if they have not been as focused on ecclesiology as Dever’s group has been, have lifted up a number of Presbyterian or presbyterial voices as heroes to younger Southern Baptists.” I see this as a good thing,.
Bart, You have put my thoughts onto paper better than I ever could have and have added some insights as well. Fantastic analysis. Years ago someone gave me a John Maxwell tape subscription. Over and over he would talk about “how to convince your board……”. Of course, he was speaking to bible churches and denominations with elder boards and his teaching constantly reflected the truth that these boards made up of lay elders had become a road block to pastoral leadership. I tell guys all the time that elder boards won’t fix what is wrong with people. Sadly, the systems being set up that exclude congregational votes are far poorer systems than Presbyterianism. In Presbyterianism members can at least appeal beyond their local elders to the presbytery and get a hearing, in “elder rule” systems the congregation can only vote with its feet. There is no accountability at all beyond themselves.
“Sadly, the systems being set up that exclude congregational votes are far poorer systems than Presbyterianism”
Bingo. I wish I had thought to say that in the article!
Tim B.,
“In Presbyterianism members can at least appeal beyond their local elders to the presbytery and get a hearing, in “elder rule” systems the congregation can only vote with its feet. There is no accountability at all beyond themselves.”
Just to clarify, I am a ruling elder in a PCA church and have been in the past a teaching elder as well. The congregation does in deed have to vote on a lot of things, including the call and dismissal of a pastor and the election of ruling elders and deacons. A pastor (TE) cannot simply appoint elders.
And you are correct about appealing to the presbytery to appeal session (elder board) decisions and other matters.
What I find hilarious is some people putting down Deacon Boards, and talking about the Deacons running a Church being so bad. And, all the time they’re talking about an Elder Board being better! lol I mean, it’s almost a humorous game of semantics….no matter what you call them…Deacons or Elders…it’s still not gonna be good, if a small number of men run a Church.
I’m all for Elder/Pastor/Pastors LED Churches, which are Congregational…with a Deacon BODY, who helps the Pastor serve the Church and solves problems. I really don’t think that a Presbyterian style, Elders RULED Church is the best way, nor the most Biblical way, to do Church govt.
Thanks, Bart, for this good article. And, let me share with you another little story that happened down the road from me. A Cumberland Presbyterian Church, which was ruled by Elders, fired the Pastor and the Youth Pastor, one Thursday night. The next day, the Elders called the Pastor and the Youth Pastor to tell them that they were fired. And, on Sunday, people showed up, and wondered where their Pastors were. The members of the Church were furious with the Elders. And, this led to some very heated and terrible times…and, this CP Church lost a lot of members over that. But, that was the way they were ruled, or governed.
David
Thanks, David.
We have to be careful about polity in TX and TN. You always have to presume that there are firearms in the church meeting. 🙂
Bart,
That’s true. Or else, some good ole boy will come back with his 3 brothers, and beat the daylights out of ya.
David
Bart,
Thanks for this really thoughtful essay. I serve as a non-staff (unpaid) elder in a Baptist church with a plural-elder-led form of congregationalism. However, I share nearly all of your concerns about the direction at least *some* elder-led churches among us are moving. While I am grateful for the renewed emphasis on eldership among Baptists, we must be careful to make sure that we do not abandon our commitment to a Christ-centered congregationalism.
Baptists have debated the number of elders a church should have off and on since the 17th century, but until relatively recently congregationalism has been a non-negotiable. Historically speaking, we were quite literally Congregationalists before we were Baptists! I am leery of the threat that some forms of eldership pose to congregationalism (as well as every other threat to congregationalism unrelated to the elder question). We need a widespread renewal of healthy congregationalism, regardless of how a church approaches the question of eldership.
In terms of your proposed solution, I’m with you on every point except for number 4. I see payment of all elders as a matter of indifference that is not addressed in Scripture. But, regardless of how many elders are paid, all elders should also be considered pastors, all should have some teaching or preaching and shepherding responsibilities, and, when possible, at least some elders should make their living as elders. I would also add that any elder who couldn’t also theoretically serve as an elder, whether paid or unpaid, in a sister church is probably not suited to be an elder. At our church, we hope that any of our elders–paid or unpaid–could theoretically be called by a sister church to serve them as a pastor of some sort.
For what it’s worth, I have written a chapter for a forthcoming book on church polity and leadership that offers a critique of presbyterian polity from the perspective of a plural-elder-led congregationalism. I argue distinctively Baptist churches with a plural eldership should affirm a robust congregational polity and make no distinction between “teaching” and “ruling” elders. All elders both teach and lead, though not necessarily in exactly the same way. I suggest the following “organizational chart” for Christ-centered congregationalism:
Local churches are
– ruled by Christ
– governed by their membership
– led by pastors/elders (regardless of number)
– served by deacons
Thanks again for the thoughtful essay.
NAF
“I see payment of all elders as a matter of indifference that is not addressed in Scripture.”
If that line is in your book, Local 135 of the International Brotherhood of Southern Baptist Preachers will boycott it and have it burned. 🙂
Nathan, I have to ask: Do you think that having non-staff elders at your church is strategic or circumstantial? In other words, does your church think that it is important that some of the elders be people who are not on the staff? If so, why?
Although I differ with your “matter of indifference” position, I’m not overly troubled by it (except insofar as it seems to me to undergird the bifurcation that I’m wanting to avoid, and that it seems to me from your description your church is also trying to avoid), but it seems to me that many of these local implementations make the payment or non-payment of some of the elders a matter of some importance.
I serve at a church with 3 paid pastors/elders, and as of now one non-paid pastor. For us, it was a man who came into our church with pastoral experience and a specific skill set and a willingness to serve, so we made him the pastor of counseling, both practicing and training others. We would actually looked like to hire him full time, but our church size doesn’t allow it for now. So in that case it was a matter of necessity more than design…But…
we also see several other potential elders in our congregation, and our church could never hire 7-8 pastors. If these men became elders, they would be sharing and spreading pastoral care and occasional teaching / preaching duties, and their secular vocations would give them perspectives and avenues into peoples lives that we as full-time staff do not…so in that case, it would be by design because an elder with an outside job brings a different perspective.
Andy,
I agree with so much of this. A fellow pastor who has retired from another congregation in our town seems to be settling into our congregation. If he were to join, I would consider adding him to our pastors/elders/overseers in much the way that you have done.
As to the others, please remember that bivocational ministry is a viable option. It is possible to pay elders something, in recognition of the biblical precedent, without having to come up with a full-time salary for all of them.
In fact, $20 a year for a very-part-time elder who is well supported in another job would entirely satisfy my wishes.
I suppose that for many of the men we might consider as potential elders, $20 a year would seem more a token than any real compensation for service.
What we have done with our sole unpaid pastor is provide him resources for ministry, counseling training, discipleship materials, and even some help with his own continuing Ed. I suspect that would be the same with more unpaid elders. The men I am thinking of have good jobs and likely wouldn’t want to take any money from the church, but they would likely use money set aside for their use in ministry. And perhaps on the occasions when they preach, pay them as we would a guest speaker.
I would still propose that small church with only one paid pastor could have several unpaid pastors, and still justifiably pay a janitor and/or a secretary as well. It seems a wise use of resources.
Indeed, the $20 is a token. Tokens can be important. If the congregation can afford to pay more, then by all means, do so. Here’s a hypothetical exchange exploring the value of the token.
Me: “Fred, we’re adding you as one of the church’s elders. I know you have a good job, and I know that you don’t want a salary, so we’re just going to pay you $20 this year.”
Fred: “But pastor, I don’t want ANY salary! I couldn’t take money from the church. That $20 is hardly worth the trouble. I’d rather just not take it at all.”
Me: “Well, Fred, you’ve got biblical precedent on your side. You certainly can refuse to take the money, and I appreciate your love for the church and your willingness to sacrifice your time and effort for no financial reward at all. It is these qualities about you that make us sure that you’re right for this position. But we’re adding the $20 to the budget anyway. Whether you accept it or not is your choice.”
Fred: “But I’d rather it not be on the budget at all. I’m just not comfortable taking money from the church. It just doesn’t feel right.”
Me: “But I take money from the church.”
Fred: “Well, that’s different. You’re the pastor.”
Me: “But, Fred. You’re becoming one of the pastors, too.”
Fred: “I know that’s what you say, but you’re the professional pastor. I’m not the same kind of pastor as you. I shouldn’t be paid.”
Me: “That’s why it is so important to pay you, Fred. There is only one kind of pastor. You are exactly the same kind of pastor as I. That $20 will make no impact whatsoever upon your budget, but it will make an enormous statement about the nature of your position in this congregation. We’re adding the $20 to the budget, not because you need it financially, but in order to remind you, me, and this congregation that you are exactly the same kind of pastor as all of the rest of us.”
Fred: “But I don’t want the congregation to be burdened by me.”
Me: “Then you can’t be a pastor, Fred. Because whether you take the money or not, according to the New Testament the church’s members have a biblical mandatory obligation to honor you, respect you, and give you the opportunity to earn your living by the gospel ministry that you are undertaking.”
Bart,
I have worked with many varying styles of Elder Led, Elder Rule, Pastor Led, and Congregational – some in their purist sense. In interacting with these I have discovered that no system is perfect and most all experience similar issues with varying severity.
Your applied model at FBCF has been the one that seems to have stood the test of time. As sin abounds, a system that provides accountability and protection in the best possible extent should be the desire from the pews to the pulpit.
Often the Elder Led/Rule only provide the appearance of smooth and trouble free decision making. In the end, one can find power moves and more.
A healthy church will never be EASY. And we would do well to remember that our tinkering with polity can often result in speedy unforeseen harm.
“We would do well to remember that our tinkering with polity can often result in speedy unforeseen harm.”
Indeed. That’s profound, right there, folks.
Tim,
I also like the “tinkering with polity” comment. I think SBC Voices would serve its readers well by asking a handful of bloggers–preferably seasoned pastors–to tell their stories about how they successfully “tinkered.” I’m not just talking about churches that moved to the model Bart is writing about–I mean churches that have made any sort of significant change that was deemed by the members and pastor(s) to be a step in a healthier direction. What a great opportunity to learn from the wisdom and past experiences of others, even if we don’t agree on all the particulars.
NAF
Nathan,
That would be a great discussion and reveal!
Bart,
If your comment 17 was on Facebook, I would like it.
Having non-staff elders at our church is a strategic decision. We are firmly committed to shared shepherding within the context of congregational polity. While we have added paid elders as there has been the need to do so, we want to raise up as many biblically qualified, God-called pastors as we can from within our body. We also want to see some of them eventually go out from us and serve sister congregations, plant churches, serve on the mission field, etc. But even among our non-staff elders, there are differing levels of past pastoral experience. Of our seven non-staff elders, three of the brethren are completely homegrown and have never served in vocational ministry, three of us have previous church staff or missionary experience, and a seventh brother has a seminary degree and serves as a VP at SEBTS.
We are trying to avoid the bifurcation, and probably 75% of our church totally gets what we are doing. However, it is true that some of our folks (especially some of our senior saints) don’t believe they have received a “real” pastoral visit at their hospital bedside if a non-staff pastor shows up instead of a staff pastor. But I chalk that up to tradition–paradigm shifts, even those within shared boundaries (like congregationalism) take time.
NAF
A helpful reply. If you hit what you’re shooting at (my apologies, Dr. Finn…”If you hit that AT WHICH you are shooting”), then I’ll be happy with it. I just suspect that it generally makes a big difference in people’s minds when there is payment involved. And I would also note that it seems, logically, that if it is a matter of indifference biblically, perhaps the church ought not to be dogmatic about having elders who are not paid?
But that’s a small squabble compared to the bulk of what is in the post. To wit, I am most pleased that all of your staff elders are indeed recognized as elders.
Bart,
I don’t think “dogmatic” and “strategic” are necessarily the same (though they could be in some cases). I don’t think any of our elders are dogmatic about our particular approach, but it is our approach for strategic reasons! Just as with single-elder-led congregationalism, there is room for some variety in application based upon contextual considerations. In our case, we are blessed with a pool of potential prospective elders–not counting seminarians who are members. I do not believe this is the case for most Southern Baptist churches. In the past, I have served in churches where only a couple of deacons seemed to be biblically qualified–thinking about potential future elders would’ve been completely off the radar!
NAF
Good point about dogmatic/strategic.
How often and on what does a church have to meet and vote to be considered congregational in polity?
That’s the question I can never seem to get answered. Is it enough for them to approve the budget and the hiring of staff? Do they have to have a monthly or quarterly meeting?
My elder council meets monthly. They set the budget. Oversee the ministries of the church and cast the overall vision for the church.
The church approves the yearly budget. The church affirms any elder or staff person who the elders feel is called to serve the church.
Are we congregational, elder led, or elder ruled? I would honestly like to know.
Also, I agree largely with Nathan on the mix of paid and unpaid elders. We intentionally have both and will continue to as we grow. It’s a healthy mix that keeps us balanced in our thoughts about the church. Two of my best elders are lifelong laymen who are not called to vocational ministry but are obviously called as elders in our context.
Really good article Bart!
To boil it down to its simplest form, I would consider a church to be congregational if the congregation sets what the church’s polity is. Could the congregation call a meeting and vote to fire all of your elders, end elder leadership, and go to a monthly business meeting in which they vote to approve every little thing? Is that a right that continues to be reserved to the congregation?
If so, I’d call that a congregationalist church. Whatever the elders are doing, they are serving at the pleasure of the congregation.
Not all versions of congregationalism are biblical. I’d say that congregationalism is unbiblical if it does not permit elders to provide biblical leadership to the congregation. I’d say that congregationalism is unbiblical if it denies to the congregation the exclusive right to administer its own membership (by admitting members, disciplining members, and excluding members) and leadership (by calling and dismissing elders and deacons).
Do you think that the mix of paid and unpaid elders is a biblical idea? Do you think that such a basic principle of church polity ought to have some biblical foundation? I see people in the New Testament who chose for themselves to forego the gifts to which they were entitled, but I’d be indebted to you if you could show me the New Testament rationale for having some elders who are paid and some who are not.
“Not all versions of congregationalism are biblical. I’d say that congregationalism is unbiblical if it does not permit elders to provide biblical leadership to the congregation. I’d say that congregationalism is unbiblical if it denies to the congregation the exclusive right to administer its own membership (by admitting members, disciplining members, and excluding members) and leadership (by calling and dismissing elders and deacons).”
Yep x 4 with a couple of these thrown in: !!!
I think we forget that the principle of congregational polity is based not just in the priesthood of all believers and the indwelling of the Spirit in all people, but also in the fallen, sinful nature of all mankind.
In short: there’s no pastor or elder group that’s going to be less prone to sinful failure than an entire congregation of the redeemed. And, in all honesty, if you concentrate all power into five-nine people, then you are depriving the church of the wisdom of the body at large.
I would think we all agree that some matters should just be dealt with rather than business meeting-ed. If the toilet’s busted, you get a plumber and fix it. You don’t wait to vote on that. This and a dozen other examples of nitpick work can and should be handle either by a group of volunteers (committee, team, task force, whatever) or by a designated employee (admin pastor, secretary, rabbi).
But the major actions of the body should be addressed by the body of believers. Budgets and staff intake are two big points; buildings another.
Empower the elders/pastors to teach, preach, and deal with the bulk of the work, but there should remain an accountability to the body at large. Those that have it may prove to never need it–but I have not heard many long-lasting stories where those that had it not proved not to need it.
Amen. I agree, Doug.
The multi-site model has pride and selfishness at its roots. “They need to hear ME preach! Why should I let some other moron mess up what I can build! MY gifts are demonstrably superior!” History will show that the multi-site model was NOT a step forward; not even close.
Alan,
That is only true of certain types of multi-site models. That doesn’t come close to applying to all multisite models.
Matt,
If I may ask. How can a multi-site model operate at a congregational level? How can the Elder (and possibly the leader among equals), or the Senior Pastor not become a Bishop like an Episcopal governence style? How can the individual sites (congregations) govern themselves in a multi-site model? How can they initiate issues that may pertain to them (financially or internally) that aren’t going on at the other sites?
Now, I’m not saying that church planting, where a mother church sends out people (and pastors) and assists the plant monetarily for a time-being is a bad thing. In fact, I would say it is biblical. However, that plant will, at some point (and I would add as quickly as possible), become an autonomous body of believers. That is not a “Multi-Site” model, IMO.
The current trend of multi-site models is Episcopal in nature and governance and essentially is creating little entities where a Leader (Bishop) or group of leaders (bishops) ends up “ruling” over the sites. All sites must adhere to the overall model and each site, while possibly having some votes, is voting with all the sites as a “congregation”.
Futhermore, I have yet to see where a multi-site model allows a site the option to depart from the mother church, without losing its building, land, etc.
Nate…
Honestly you are describing the current state of Sunday School at many SBC churches. Your objections apply equally there. And we’ve all seen it on one level or another:
– the SS teacher who is most revered above the pastor
– the one who “preaches” rather than teaches or leads a class through the study
– the SS teacher who actually uses a pulpit (????)
– the members who are loyal to their class or teacher in opposition to the need to expand the number of classes to minister to and be welcoming towards new members and visitors
the internecine conflicts in budget committees between the Sr Adult SS dept and the young adult dept, between the youth dept and the median adult dpts, and that’s just budget desires to say nothing of space requirements: i.e. That has been my classroom for 10, 20, 40 years why do I/we have to move now?
The common multi-site model is nothing more than a larger version of Sunday School. Some sites have the same preacher streaming to each site, others have a “campus” pastor that does the preaching since each campus is in essence another congregation with their own needs. Like Sunday School, each campus can reach a different part of town based on geography or style.
The problems inherent in the current age-graded/affinity-group of either extraordinary loyalty to the class above the church or divisions between classes or departments are also in the multi-site model on a larger scale.
One church I was at tried this rather than plant a church and move: they were land-locked but wanted to leave a functioning church in the center of town. Most people struggled, as apparently so do you, with the idea that two congregations/classes can belong to the same church. The fearful went so far as to demand a naming convention that was 3 miles long: First Southern Baptist Church-Northern Campus. they FROWNED deeply on anyone just saying “North Campus” as though it was disrespectful towards the FSBC-Main Campus.
For the congregation (and I think the pastor as well) it was a bridge too far to try an expand ministry in this way so as to have more facilities and share them than to just plant another church and leave us be back hear at the Home Place.
“Honestly you are describing the current state of Sunday School at many SBC churches. Your objections apply equally there. And we’ve all seen it on one level or another:”
Each Sunday School is not on its own property. Each Sunday School is not viewing their teacher on video (in many cases). Each Sunday School class does not have its own Campus Pastor (and I use Pastor in a 1 Tim 3 boundary).
You are minimalizing the issue dramatically. If your church has given that much power to a lay Sunday School teacher then you have many other problems that lie outside the boundaries of dicussing the Episcopal model of government that is use at Multi-site churches.
Nate-
“Each SS is not its own property…” try telling that to SS members when they need to move to a smaller location because the youth dept is growing and needs more space than the Sr Adults and you’ll see “property rights” asserted… sometimes.
And you are being intentionally narrow in your definition of “property.” All of the sites are the “property” of the corporate entity known as FBC Wherever as documented by the State Commerce Commission. Also, if done well, each campus can feel loyalty and fealty to both their own outreach mission and that of the entire church combined.
“Each SS does not have its own Campus Pastor” – see above about moving a class and then tell them that the SS dept director sees the need to divide classes for ministry needs and watch people fidget over not getting to hear their teacher, “well, that’s MY SS teacher and I don’t want to listen to anyone else.”
I’m not minimizing the issue, i’m clarifying it. You have no warrant to classify ALL multi-site church projects as episcopal. Some are, some aren’t, and some are in between. And, by the way, the “given that much power” line is a misnomer. You know that that kind of “power” isn’t given as much as it grows and is assumed by the sinners in every SS class.
I’m using a familiar organizational model to describe its counter-point on steroids. You are unfairly characterizing all such churches and you should quite.
You don’t like the MS model, fine. To quote Gamaliel, just make sure you don’t get in God’s way if this is of Him. Whether or not they are congregational or episcopal or somewhere in between, if souls are being saved and lives changed and God glorified, who cares???
If it’s not for you, don’t join that church. But don’t look down on them in judgement or you sin by not building them up (Eph 4:29) and also might be avoiding blessing by not being merciful to those who might need it (Matt 5:7).
I’m not defending the model but trying to describe it’s bones. But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, Nate.
Greg, you are the only person that I have ever heard try and compare Sunday School to Multi-Site campuses. And yes, your lay Sunday School may have power, but if the congregation lets him (or her) supercede the congregation, then you have the larger issue that Bart discussed in his post.
There are not multiple brick-and-mortar buildings and land between one classroom and another (unless you are running all the Sunday School classrooms in personal homes). Again, I specifically clarified that a Sunday School teacher is not a Pastor, not one called by the congregation.
And the issue of “Whether or not they are congregational or episcopal or somewhere in between, if souls are being saved and lives changed and God glorified, who cares” simply does not wash. We are on SBC Voices, not Ecumenical Voices. This post and the series of post have been discussing issues pertaining to Article 3 of the BF&M as well as discussion congregationalism as it pertains to the history of the SBC.
I am making an argument that Mult-site campuses, by their very nature, have a much larger burden on them of maintaining a congregational atmosphere. I’m making an argument that it is almost impossible, though I’m still waiting for Matt or somebody to answer my questions that I posed. You have hi-jacked that conversation by comparing Sunday School to Multi-Campus. You say that you are not defending the model, but you have made no attempt to answer the questions that I originally posed.
Give me an example of how Multi-Site campuses aren’t Episcopal by their very nature? Sunday School is not an example.
Nate, our church has 3 multi-sites. Two are in trailers in mobile home parks, the other in a large apartment complex. All are fully funded and staffed (with NAMB help) by the home church.
I’m guessing that is not the multi-site model you take issue with.
I completely agree. But some folks are just too loyal to a particular teacher… i’ve seen it go to people’s heads from behind their table-top pulpit.
This does wash in the SBC since 1) nothing in the BFM mitigates against it specifically and 2) Churches may draw up their own statement of faith and bylaws and define themselves in whatever manner they wish. AND, they can still be SBC churches even if they have an elder board elected by the congregation and everyone of them qualified according to 1 Timothy. Doesn’t mean you have to like it or if it is “normal” or “traditional” for the SBC; it’s autonomy in action.
I agree in principal it is harder. In practice it is either impossible or completely doable based on the leadership, commitment of the people, and organizational structure of how the parts work together. The SAME congregational division can happen within a single church if they have the “Traditional/Hymns-only” service and the “Contemporary” service and never the twain shall meet, much less in a SS class. If EVER there was a a false divide sold by Satan that the church swallowed hook, line, and sinker, this is it.
As to your original question, I misunderstood you because I didn’t take that series of questions into context. Here is my best shot:
This is multifaceted and can only be answered with hypotheticals and or ideals and in a very short manner… otherwise, this will be a 2 page essay or more.
To begin with, the whole idea has to have an umbrella overlay, like a tarp on top, that connects each campus and minstry or sub-ministry (i.e. each site has youth, but they don’t always meet as ONE group every Sunday). That overlay would indicate if every church was supposed to be an Identical birth or a Fraternal birth, like twins; Identical or not, but same birthday.
Lets take Saddleback’s growth model: they could have either grown bigger in one spot or stayed small in multiple location with the same (identical/clone) format. On the other hand, maybe a church wants to reach multiple segments in a town, so one campus is “traditional” SBC with a mix of worship songs on Sunday, but another campus is Hispanic with everything in Spanish (not just the ethnicity) and another campus is designed to reach the Urban/AA community including a service to match, etc. These are just examples of how each might be birthed.
Given those two ideas (there are other possibilities, just shooting from the hip)
1)At the congregational level, each “campus” would meet at their designated location and times (i.e. a saturday night campus for folks who work on Sunday morning) and conduct worship as they felt led to create; maybe one campus is more blue-grass/cowboy and another more Chris Tomlin/Hillsong and another a mix of everything, just an example. Pastor preaches, alter call, offeratory, benediction. Each would have SS or small groups depending on how that group/sub-congregation was designed and grew. It could be designed that they vote on their campus pastor(s) just as any congregation would, but the available options come out of a search committee made up of at least one member from each campus and say 40% from the given campus. this encourages focus on the needs/desires/prayers of the given campus, but not at the expense of the whole churches design and mission. again, this is just an example
— So much for short answer —
2) There probably shouldn’t be a lead pastor who can hire/fire other staff in this arrangement, but a Lead pastor would be the pastor to the pastors. Each campus pastoral staff knows there campus and it’s needs, like the leaders of the house churches in Galatia or Ephesus, but they would meet together for Worship on Sunday, but daily in each location. The Sr or Lead pastor is not sending or directing or dictating but is guiding and counseling and facilitating, like James in the Jerusalem council. He was the spokesperson to Paul, but it wasn’t his dictate about abstaining from meat with blood, but was the whole council’s desire. The same should be of the pastoral staff of a MS church. At least, that is my thought on it.
3)It could be designed that they vote on their campus pastor(s) just as any congregation would, but the available options come out of a search committee made up of at least one member from each campus and say 40% from the given campus. this encourages focus on the needs/desires/prayers of the given campus, but not at the expense of the whole churches design and mission. again, this is just an example: 4 campuses, one needs a campus pastor, the search committee has 2 reps per campus and 2 additional from the campus in question, all have been selected/voted on by their campus. 40% representation by the campus in need and 100% of the church is represented to call and present candidates that the campus in question then votes on and then is presented in a special service to the whole church. Since the whole church is already on the search committee (a temporary thing I might add) then there should be no problem when it comes to a total vote. Again, this is just an idea in as practical terms as I can on the fly.
4)See number 3 for the model. In general there are or should be 2 layers of consideration: pastoral and congregational. The pastors should all meet regularly to stay on the same page, for accountability (nothing is off limits), for concerns or issues or needs at their separate campuses (campi ?), and for prayer. Also, all campuses would be a part of each committee and pastors would be assigned to each committee as ex officio meembers, but maybe not every pastor on every committee ( i for one am not huge on financial spreadsheets, let someone else do it). These assignments can be decided by all the campus pastors and Sr pastor (or maybe he is an executive pastor or pastor emeritus, again pastor to the pastors). As needs of each campus are presented by the pastors and or committees for discussion and then together as a representative group (just like today) they decide how to pull together for the needs of each campus and each member. I can’t even think of a practical example at the moment.
that’s all i’ve got 🙂
Mike, not if, at some point, these “multi-sites” will be birthed into autonomous congregations. I would call that church-planting, and I stated for such instances in my first comment.
Now, if the situations in the trailer-park and apartment complex are really small-groups, then I wouldn’t even call that multi-site because those folks would still have opportunity to meet with the church at its weekly gathering, but I don’t believe that is what you are implying they are.
Greg: You and I can finally agree on something. I completely agree that a “traditional service” and a “contemporary service” has the ability to create two separate congregations under one roof. For that matter, multiple services of the same style has the same deficiency. On this aspect, I agree with Dever’s concept of what constitutes a church.
Nate –
I think we agree on more than that 🙂
I’m not defending the MS strategy, just thinking about how it could work and still be congregational and SBC and workable.
Of course, to quote Robin William’s “Genie” from Aladdin: there are a few addendums, provisos, and quid pro quos…” just as Jafar yanks on his beard.
“Whatever the elders are doing, they are serving at the pleasure of the congregation.”
Yep.
a related thought about ‘elders’ . . . .
it is said among Christian people that, in the evening of our lives, God will judge us on our love. From Matthew 25, Christ spells out what kind of love God will judge us on.
This is a season where love can be shown by honoring the REAL ‘elders’ who the old people in your Church who have given much in service to others within the Church and within the community. Some of them are now shut-ins, or in nursing homes. Spend some time with the old servants of God during this season. Listen to them and learn from them.
Your Church is stronger for their years of service.
Share some time with these old ones this Lenten season to honor Christ in remembrance of His coming among us as the suffering servant who taught us through His example of sacrifice.
“a related thought about ‘elders’ . . . it is said among Christian people that, in the evening of our lives, God will judge us on our love.”
L’s,
That sounds good and is quite thought provoking. However, upon completion of the “thought,” one must respond that you are wrong and in diametric opposition to the Scripture as to how those of us in the evening of our lives shall be judged.
We shall be judged as anyone else and there is only one standard by which we are all judged.
That standard is Jesus and Jesus alone. Do we know Him in accord with the biblical gospel? If we do not, no matter how we minister to “shut-ins” or those in “nursing homes,” we shall be hopelessly lost from the family of God and damned to hell from everlasting to everlasting.
Amen. C.B. has spoken the truth.
Dear Bart: I spent some six years studying the Bible and Church History on the issue of the church, the ekklesia. One thing that soon became evident is that the ekklesia is a term that really describes an assembly that is by its very nature, congregational in church government. Any other description is a deviation from the standards established by our Lord and His Apostles. Consider where Jesus said in Matthew 18:17, “tell it to the church, the ekklesia, a body of members equal in rights and responsibilities. Peter clearly understood our Lord’s position on elders and their place in the church, leaders – not lords: “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” The Presbyterians lost much to the inroads of skepticism (Liberalism as some call it, not knowing that the term really belongs to Bible believers), due to the doubters getting control of the seminaries and the presbyteries. And Baptists would have lost as much, had it not been for Congregational Church Government which respects the rights and responsibilities of all of the church members. B.H. Carroll understood it all too well, when he said, “Tell it to the people.” Basically, that is what happened in the recent Conservative Resurgence. When I went to my third church, the chairman of the pulpit committee asked me, “What do you believe about the Bible?” I answered, “I believe it is the word of God.” Then he asked, “You don’t believe that it contains the word of God.” I answered, “No, that is the liberal position. I hold that the Bible is the written word of God, every word as it was originally given is the verbally inspired word of God.” His next comment would start the ball rolling to what would prove to be a unanimous call and the best eleven years of my twenty-eight years in actual pastoring: “You might be the fellow we’re looking for.” I have no doubt that Carroll understood all too clearly that Baptists were congregational in church government and that the average church member can be and is, if taught rightly, an asset to the truth, a minister in his or her own right. The wisest man I ever met was a church member who spent 10 years read church records in the evenings on a home made microfilm machine. I quoted him in a Master’s thesis in Intellectual History. Eldership that governs the church is not the church, and, even though I was fired by an abuse of congregational church government, that moves me not at all from my position.
James,
I agree with what you have said about congregationalism. I believe that there is plenty of room for elders to provide strong leadership to the congregation without violating congregationalism.
Strong leadership, yes, but not unilateral actions as the elders, pastors, overseers of the local church, but with the latter’s consent expressed in voting and very much participating in the work. I could tell you of a church where the elders governed and the next pastor who came with the elders consent and not the church’s wound up driving away the elders. Tsk!
We are in agreement.
Bart,
I appreciate your contribution here. I have been a part of several churches that had very different polity.
I am biblically convinced that the NT implies strongly and gives great evidence of the existence of plural elders in local churches. On a practical note though I have been a part of two churches with very healthy leadership: Buck Run Baptist Church (similar to your polity), The Bridge Church (my current church that is fully elder-led). I have also been a part of two churches with very unhealthy leadership- one was a strongly congregational, typical SBC polity church and the other was elder led.
Here were the main differences between the two:
1) Personal godliness and Spirit-induced humility
2) Deep biblical convictions and a high value of the Word and theology
3) A love for their people more than their growth (though both were growing significantly)
I say that to say this- I am not really concerned too much one way or the other on how a church decided their polity. I think a plurality of elders is biblical and I would love to see every church be there. At the same time, I know others don’t agree with my convictions and many will set their polity like your church.
What I do know is that great health can be had both ways and I don’t think there is really any reason at all to be too concerned about either form of polity in the SBC. If we the leaders in our SBC churches have the three things I listed above we will be quite alright with either polity.
“…many will set their polity like your church.”
My church has three pastors/elders/overseers who all are acknowledged as such. Not to be contentious, but just to advance the conversation: Why would you not consider us to have “a plurality of elders”?
You are right. The difference between us is probably more how the elders function, not how the polity is set up.
Serious question: would people in your church describe their church polity as, “plurality of elders.” Or would they, “We are led and run through congregationalism and we have staff members direct this?”
I ask that question because I think how “plurality of elders” functions really determines what it means to have a plurality of elders. In our case, my guess is that we both do in fact have a plurality of elders, yet how the elders function is probably quite different.
“Would the people in your church describe their church polity as ‘plurality of elders’?”
The people of my church would say, “What’s polity?”
Yes. Comments like this are why I love you.
But, to offer a more substantive answer to your question, I’ll just say,
1. I’ve carefully instructed my church that all of our pastors are pastors just the same.
2. I am careful always to introduce myself as “one of the pastors here at FBC Farmersville.”
3. My fellow pastors know that I value them as my peers.
4. I am deliberate about using the word “elders” occasionally, just so our members can understand that pastors are elders are overseers, but because the traditional language in this church favors “pastor” over “elder,” we commonly use that terminology.
But I agree with you about the value of the assets that you have mentioned. Certainly the absence of those things will pollute any system of polity.
Bart has presented a well reasoned argument for congregational rule. To reaffirm what he has said about the pastor/elder being the same office and for a biblical look at the so called “plurality” of elders, see D.A. Carson’s article at Defining Elders
I keep trying to fix your link, Calvin, but I can’t seem to do it. To all who might try to follow the link, you’ll have to cut-and-paste. The link continues past the commas, but WordPress isn’t smart enough to know that. Even manually adding the a tag doesn’t fix it.
Calvin,
That is a great article, and as is generally the case with Carson, very balanced. Thanks for posting the link.
By the way, where are you at these days? It’s been a while. Great to see you check in here at SBC Voices.
“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” (1 Peter 5:1-4 ESV)
Those elders who are eager shepherds overseeing the flock of God as godly servants will receive great reward from the Chief Shepherd .
Those elders who are self serving domineering rulers are shameful and will be judged by the chief Shepherd.
Acts 15 demonstrates to us that while the elders obviously exercised oversight leading, guiding, and instructing, even discussing among themselves the people (the congregation, the whole church) were certainly involved.
The result? The whole congregation was pleased, and rejoiced.
That’s what happens when elders lead as godly shepherds.
When they rule as domineering overlords the people mourn and are displeased.
May this admonish and remind all elders of the daunting task before us.
Amen, Tarheel.
Congregational democratic polity, under the lordship of Christ, at its best:
“And when they got through with all the rest of the church conference,
at the close of the minister’s sermon, the oldest deacon, then quite frail in
health, rose up and began to talk deliberately and very solemnly. I thought, ‘What a remarkable talk he is making—perhaps he thinks it is his last talk.’ Presently, I became disturbed by it. He said to the church in conference:
“‘There is such a thing as a church duty when the whole church must act. There is such a thing as an individual duty, when the individual, detached from every other individual, must face duty for himself; but it is my deep conviction, as it is yours—for we have talked much one with another—that this church has a church duty to perform, and that we have waited late and long to get about it. I move, therefore, that this church call a presbytery to ordain Brother George W. Truett to the full work of the gospel ministry.’
“It was promptly seconded and I immediately got the floor and implored them to desist. I said, ‘You have me appalled; you simply have me appalled!’ And then one after another talked, and the tears ran down their cheeks and they said, ‘Brother George, we have a deep conviction that you ought to be preaching.’ Again I appealed to them and said, ‘Wait six months! Wait six months!’ And they said, ‘We won’t wait six hours. We are called to do this thing now and we are going ahead with it. We are moved by a deep conviction that it is the will of God. We dare not wait. We must follow our convictions.’
“There I was, against a whole church, against a church profoundly moved. There was not a dry eye in the house—one of the supremely solemn hours in the church’s life. I was thrown into the stream, and just had to swim.”
Fant, Clyde., and William M. Pinson, eds. A Treasury of Great Preaching: An Encyclopedia of Preaching. Vol. 8. (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1995), 133.
I’ve got a man that I fully believe, as do the deacons and most of the active church body here, should be recognized as a deacon. He already serves in the ways I would expect a deacon to serve, he’s known as a servant and leader within the church.
And I am telling my deacons that we need to absolutely do this with him if he tells us “no” one more time to being set aside officially as a deacon.
I’ve loved that story about Truett since I took History of Preaching back in college.
Amen. I love that story.
Whether episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational, when it comes time to make decisions, the only thing that will keep any church/denomination/convention healthy and true is the fear of the LORD. “Then great fear came on the whole church and on all who heard these things” Acts 5:11 (HCSB).
Dr. Barber,
Thank you for this thought provoking, Baptist Identity retaining article. This issues you address are becoming more and more important for our churches to understand, and I am convinced that our pastors/elders need to teach more on polity and governance.
Perhaps an excerpt from the opening paragraphs of Lee H. McCoy’s “Understanding Baptist Polity” (Nashville: Convention Press, 1964.) [part of the old home study course series] will challenge us all to take seriously these issues.
McCoy states:
“How a church is governed is largely determined by its polity. Polity is the theory and form of the governmental system. It signifies the principles which operate when a church either governs itself or is governed by others. Polity and government are closely akin in meaning and are inseparably related.
Polity denotes the seat of authority; government exercises the authority.
Polity denotes the constitution or structure of government; government provides the structure.
Polity denotes the method of government; government rules according to the method.
Polity denotes the basis of membership; government regulates the membership.
Polity denotes the way of doing; government sees that it is done.
Polity denotes the type of government; government maintains the type of polity.” (pg3-4)
This could be a good test for whether a church functions congregationally, or is only congregational in name.
A good source!
W. B. Johnson, one of the founders of the South Carolina State Baptist Convention and the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote, The Gospel Developed Through the Government and Order of the Churches of Jesus Christ” (1846). In Chapter 8, “The Rulers of a Church of Christ,” he notes that in the New Testament, “It is worthy of particular attention, that each church had a plurality of elders.” He later adds, “A plurality in the bishopric is of great importance for mutual counsel and aid, that the government and edification of the flock may be promoted in the best manner.” The argument that Southern Baptists should have nothing to do with a plurality of elders fails to consider the convention’s history.
Bart,
Thanks for this thoughtful article. I am a Senior Pastor of a church which practices elder-led, congregational polity. Two of our paid pastoral staff (including myself) serve as part of the elder team. We also have two retired pastors and two laymen on this team. Though our non-staff elders are not paid per se, each year when the staff receives monetary gifts from the church at Christmas, the lay elders also receive a gift.
This polity has served us well. We still have very strong elements of congregationalism coupled with the accountability and strength of plurality among the pastoral leadership. I believe this approach to be biblical. It is also very practical. The plurality of pastoral leadership serves as a protection for the congregation. Too often in a single-pastor model the church can be harmed or hindered by the limitations of one man in both character and competency. We have found that plurality adds strength to the pastoral leadership by providing mutual accountability. It also strengthens decisions to have more than one perspective on ministry issues.
The congregational aspects of this model have been very beneficial as well. All church leaders, including pastors, elders, and deacons must be elected by the congregation. All major recommendations must be approved by the congregation. The elders cannot act unilaterally. These proposals are presented to the congregation in quarterly meetings for discussion and approval.
Though I agree with some of your concerns about eldership, I believe there are ways to implement this polity which harnesses the biblical values of both plural leadership and congregationalism.