(from the SBC Plodder) Here is an abstract of one of those Calvinist church situations that caused me to write an earlier piece on being wary of my five-pointer brethren – another place, I know some of the players, passed along to me by one close to the matter. Before anyone accuses me of making this stuff…you CAN’T make this stuff up. And, you can’t survive in the SBC without a sense of humor.
Good church calls Calvinistic pastor who proceeds to implement his vision of what the church should be.
Things don’t go well. Church declines. Pastor encouraged to leave.
He leaves…but not (as if anyone doubts what would come next) without taking a considerable crowd with him to a new work not too far away, demonstrating once again Southern Baptists’ preferred method of planting churches.
His church. His crowd. His thing…which includes a small group of men – the spiritually mature, long-awaited ELDERS. No more fooling around with the neophytes that fill the pews. Let the spiritual grown-ups handle church decisions.
Things are looking pretty good…until…
…the elders, the church sages, fire the pastor. [See the title of this piece.]
It gets better. Pastor has a Damascus Road re-conversion to congregational church governance, goes to the peasantry in the pews. Behold! Elders are fired…and go down the road to start their own work.
No, you can’t make this stuff up.
So, let’s have a hearty guffaw together…and then tell every search committee we can find that they better make a solid assessment of a prospective pastor’s Calvinistic leanings and intentions before he’s given the pulpit and put on the payroll.
Question: A considerable segment of informed SBC life has some degree of reservation about Calvinists? Why?
Seems to me the problem is the pastor and his character, not his theology.
But I know that isn’t what you want the situation to say.
Exactly Jason… This really doesnt have anything to do with Calvinism.
I bet it is the pastors Premillennialism that is making him split this church!!!
Liberal. Heretic. Whippersnapper.
Sorry, there went civility.
I don’t think this piece gives us near enough information about the situation for us to draw conclusions about Calvinist pastors.
X3….trying hard to see what this has to do with Calvinism- other than this train wreck of a pastor happened to be Calvinistic. But, did he happen to believe in the Virgin Birth? Maybe that is why all of this happened?
Correlation does not imply causation. I am sure one could fill up the entire internet with such stories- from pastors of all theological views.
In defense of William (and I’m not saying that I endorse his premise completely) he was challenged in a previous discussion that such a thing does not happen. Since the question was raised as to whether something like this ever really happened, it seemed fair to give William the opportunity to share a story.
He has given me some information to know that this is a real situation (in addition to the fact that I trust his integrity).
Certainly didn’t mean to attack William and I have no reason to doubt the truth of the story. I am 100% sure this kind of thing does happen. Just trying to point out that Calvinistic pastors don’t have a monopoly on killing churches. The last line is the kind of thinking that is so dangerous: reservations about Calvinist pastors because a few (can we agree that stories such as this, while probably true, are certainly the rare exception not the rule) have been dumb/prideful/bad pastors. I don’t have reservations about non-Calvinist pastors simply because I have heard stories of how a few of them have killed/split churches wide open.
I’m not exactly sure why I attached that comment to yours, but it was more generally meant.
To be fair…no one said that this does not happen.
The point was that it is no more common to calvinists than anyone else, nor can you conclude that it happening to a calvinist is due to his calvinism.
I think the problem people had last time was more with other posters claiming that this is prevalent and happens all over the place. That is what was doubted.
I believe that is an accurate portrayal of the previous discussion, rather than anyone denying it happens at all.
I could be wrong but I’m not sure people claimed that this doesn’t happen, perhaps that it doesn’t happen with the frequency that non-calvinists imply that it does.
As others have noted, I don’t think anyone claims there are no problems with Calvinist pastors, just that Calvinism is wrongly blamed. Churches with pastors of every possible theological persuasion are subject to problems, splits, fights, etc, and pastors of every theological persuasion have had many, many issues.
I think the reason Calvinist pastors are singled out for special attention is because Calvinism as a theological system is singled out.
Other reasons for trouble could be mentioned, but the point is a big fuss is made about Calvinist pastors when there is no hard evidence that Calvinist pastors in particular tend to split churches, over and above pastors of other theological systems.
Look, I know this is kind of an incendiary topic. William has rankled a few feathers in the past and will undoubtedly do so with this one. I would remind people that we are SBC Voices – and that our goal is to provide a range of topics and a range of viewpoints. I hope we do that. So, our goal is basically to anger everyone a little!
I would say two things:
1) I have known of churches that endured similar situations.
2) I think the question that we should discuss (though you fine folks will obviously discuss that which you please!) is whether this is somehow uniquely a Calvinist problem or something else.
PLEASE try to have a civil discussion of a difficult topic.
Dave,
I will probably stay as far away from this comment stream as I can manage, but I will tag into your comment with an observation of my own. Thanks to our DR work in Minot, I have been able to sit down and talk with a great number of SBC folks from all over the country. Most of them are not pastors, so it is interesting to talk a little “SBC shop” with some of them who are more active in SBC life or in their church.
In doing so, there was a common theme that emerged regarding Calvinism. In the two or three times that Calvinism was brought up (and I didn’t do it, because frankly I try to avoid the subject), it was never carried in a positive light. One poor guy told me that his own church had been split three times now by Calvinists. I didn’t have the heart to ask for details so I just left it at that. I know too many good folks that are Calvinist by conviction. I seriously think that it is the small minority of these “cage-phase” Calvinists, as they are often referred to, that are giving all of the rest of them a very bad name. I think that is extremely unfortunate.
I will make only one comment…
As a 5-Point Calvinist I am deeply offended by this article… DEEPLY OFFENDED!
I guess that is a good thing. We’ve been accused of being a Calvinist enclave here, so if we are offending Calvinists as well, maybe we are doing something right.
We may reach our goal of offending everyone in the SBC by early autumn.
I think I did my part already when I wasn’t even trying to.
“We may reach our goal of offending everyone in the SBC”
SBC Voices is the Southpark of the blogosphere?
We aren’t fat, we are just big boned. Someone pass the cheesy poofs.
Don’t be offended Greg. . . unless the story is about you. Is it about you? I use to be a 5 point Calvinist. . . until I became a Wovenest. Yes, I shamelessly promoted the book I haven’t even finished writing yet.
I have read and heard stories of a similar nature from all over the country and various Baptist entities. It is sad that we have to go through all these elaborate hurdles in order to have good, Godly pastors. If the doctrine is divisive in general it will split the church in a heartbeat. Just ask the candidate his position, then decide if you want to go through the process of fighting with him all the time about his Calvinism, Arminianism, pre-, post, mid, a, or whatever.
Better yet is to find a young man within the congregation that God has raised up and have him interim until he demonstrates that he is God’s man for the position.
Elder rule has nothing to do with calvinism? Some SBC pastors have picked that up from Sword of the Lord maybe?
The pastor left the first church over calvinism. The second church was of his making, complete with elders. The third church…
A considerable segment of informed SBC life has some degree of reservation about Calvinists, a fact that even the most ardent calvinist here will deny?
Why do you think this is so?
Speaking for myself, I do not deny that many Calvinists believe that congregations are to be led by a plurality of elders. However, I doubt that a great many Southern Baptist Calvinists believe in Elder-Rule. Those who believe in Elder-Led churches do not see their polity as a deviation from congregationalism. As for your post, I do not think that you give us enough information for us to know the reason for the splits. From the limited information that we have, many are concluding the problem was this pastor’s attitude and character, not his theology.
Just as a comment:
I consider myself holding to the 5-points.
Of the 6 churches I’ve pastored or been a part of, only one has had elder rule. It was not one that I pastored and they really didn’t like Calvinism (it was during my pre-calvinist days).
I know that as a whole “reformed” soteriology is often paired w/ the idea of elders. But one does not necessarily equate the other.
Soteriology and ecclesiology can be different beasts.
Saying this man’s Calvinism led to the church split is simply an assumption. Instead it was this man’s desire to have elder-rule (a desire on his part that seems more whim of the moment than theologically based given the “what happened next” part), when clearly the church was not ready or open for such a thing.
If the second church was all calvinists, then calvinism didn’t split the second church, it was another issue. True?
So….we are back to the point that it appears the problem here is the pastor himself (or the elders), not his theology.
This is anecdotal and does not prove the point. In fact, in part, it undermines the point made by the OP.
Perhaps it is a good idea for a church to sit down during the interim process (or before) and decide what they REALLY believe about church polity. Then, they can find a pastor who is clear about that fact up front. If a pastor changes his theology, he should have “Adoniram Judson” type integrity, who upon becoming a Baptist, informed the congregationalists of his conversion, stopped accepting their support, and pleaded his case to the Baptists.
I agree the topic is not limited to soteriology. If the Pastor changes his position on speaking in tongues, prosperity theology, healing services, snake handling, etc., he should leave…and NOT split the church by taking people with him in the process.
As one who has helped heal a few churches that have overcome splits, I assure you, these are not evangelistic endeavors, as we all commonly joke about them. They are sad and painful, and can be avoided by a Pastor and a church who both know what they believe.
“Perhaps it is a good idea for a church to sit down during the interim process (or before) and decide what they REALLY believe about church polity. Then, they can find a pastor who is clear about that fact up front.”
Bingo. Amen. Brilliant.
Considering that a church I worked for was searching for a pastor succumbed to the mounting pressure from the church to actually do something, they released their criteria for the pastor that they were searching for.
It was a document full of unrealistic expectations and some of the items actually contradicted some of the other items.
They wound up searching for over three years for a pastor and lost about 500 of their 800 average attendance. The absolute irony was that the church ended up implementing the program and worship changes that the previous pastor advocated before they ousted him because of it in order to stem the hemorrage.
I agree with your point about church’s coming to their consensus opinions on those topics before assessing candidates. I also believe that this is the local church’s responsibility to know what they believe, NOT an overzealous state or associational employee sending out letters and CDs telling churches to oust those of some position that the church itself has never discussed before.
An SBC church in my area decided to get honest about their theological leaning and simply posted “Reformed” on their church sign! Their website, statement of faith and new members class clearly identify what reformed means. Seems like an easy fix to the “Non-Reformed” vs. “Reformed” schism in SBC ranks and fewer heartaches when new members determine down the road that the bus they’re on is not headed in the direction they first thought. Upfront honesty and integrity go a long way in preventing sad and painful outcomes. First Baptist Church (Reformed) … First Baptist Church (Non-Reformed).
Whether the pastor is a Calvinist or not, a church will always have problems when people prioritize control above other essentials (worship, Word, discipleship, service, etc.). People who have to be “shot-callers” have a spiritual problem. Nothing wrong with being a decision-maker, but if you HAVE TO have control, it’s time for serious spiritual inventory.
William,
I too know of multiple churches who have had similar problems.
If a SBC church wants to call a Calvinist pastor, that is their business and they are welcome to do so.
If a church does not have a clue the incoming pastor is a strong Calvinist, and the Calvinist is a little deceptive about his Calvinism, and the Calvinist plans radical changes in the church – that is a problem.
Pastor Search Committees (Pulpit Committees) had better start brushing up on Calvinism and Reformed views and practices.
David R. Brumbelow
David: Are Calvinists generally deceptive? Or are Calvinist pastors looking for positions generally deceptive?
Hey David,
I believe you are “right on target” with the real issue concerning one of the major problems that exists today. The very first statement made to this thread by Jason is telling to me: “Seems to me the problem is the pastor and his character, not his theology.”
The problem as I see it is that SOME Calvinists do not understand that “character” has everything to do with being honest and upfront ABOUT their theology in the pastor search process. The problem is simple and Calvinists KNOW this; non-Calvinist churches are not aware of the risks in hiring these guys that will NOT reveal their true convictions about soteriology until they have BECOME pastor. I do not care if it is Calvinism, Prosperity Gospel, Pentecostalism or a host of other issues… if a prospective pastor KNOWS that his theology is decidedly different from that of a church that is considering him as a pastor, he ought to at least address that issue BEFORE being asked to become a pastor.
In a previous post on this issue on another site, one said to me, in general, if they don’t ask I do feel obligated to tell. BOLOGNA. That kind “character” is not the kind of character I want to be associated with. Sorry.
You wrote, “If a church does not have a clue the incoming pastor is a strong Calvinist, and the Calvinist is a little deceptive about his Calvinism, and the Calvinist plans radical changes in the church – that is a problem.
Pastor Search Committees (Pulpit Committees) had better start brushing up on Calvinism and Reformed views and practices.”
All I can say is, AMEN. A friend of mine actually put together an informative piece to do just that and you would not believe the criticism that was leveled at a simple effort to help non-Calvinist search committees and churches become aware of the risks out there. The accusations were almost comical they were so pitiful.
You can be your last dollar that a Reformed church will NOT make the same mistake that a number of non-Reformed churches have made in hiring a pastor with a different “Theology.”
I am afraid the real problem is that Calvinist pastors hope this trend continues as opposed to changing. So Sad.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
Pastor search committees had better start brushing up on the BFM, Southern Baptist history and a host of other things pertaining to Baptist theology and its development.
They may also want to ask where committees are found in the BFM and the Bible.
Bob Hadley,
Thanks, and you are exactly right. Churches have the freedom to call whoever they wish, but they should be very careful who they call and what they believe.
Again, churches and Pastor Search Committees better start brushing up on Calvinism, because Calvinism is coming to a church near you. They can start by getting Whosoever Will by Allen & Lemke; Chosen But Free by Geisler; Salvation and Sovereignty by Keathley; Predestined For Hell? Absolutely Not! By Adrian Rogers.
Bill Mac,
You ask if Calvinists are deceptive. My reply is that some certainly are. I know of a preacher who believes all 5 points of Calvinism, yet told a Pastor Search Committee that he is not a Calvinist. I would call that at best, deceptive.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. B.,
What do you mean by, “Again, churches and Pastor Search Committees better start brushing up on Calvinism, because Calvinism is coming to a church near you.”
You almost act as if Calvinists are disqualified from the pastorate or barely Christians.
And what if a Calvinist pastor is up front and the non-Calvinist church still calls him (i.e. Matt Chandler)?
Mark,
You ask, “And what if a Calvinist pastor is up front and the non-Calvinist church still calls him (i.e. Matt Chandler)?”
I have no problem with that; if the church knowingly calls him, that is their business.
No, I don’t believe Calvinists are barely Christians or that they are disqualified from the pastorate.
David R. Brumbelow
David: That isn’t quite what I asked. I asked if Calvinists were, on the whole, prone to deception, more so than non-Calvinists. Are you willing to say that they are?
I think the key issue here is agenda. I have seen instances where a pastor came into a church with an agenda he did not share with the committee. Had he said, “This is my agenda – I want to accomplish this” he would not have been hired by the church. But he did not share the agenda until he gets the job, then he begins to implement it. That usually leads to splits and such problems – whatever the agenda is.
And Rick’s comment above is very instructive. Churches need to have their own identity and philosophy and tell the pastor, “this is who we are. Do you fit with our beliefs?” I once turned down a church that wanted me as a pastor. They had bylaws and policies and they demanded that the pastor give wholehearted assent to those. I told them I had a few problems – though minor – with the way they did things and we ended the courtship.
I think that church was doing things the right way.
Not sure why believing in the Sovereignty of God and His work of Salvation has such power to destroy a church. I teach Evangelism and the Great Commission. I just believe that the ultimate work of Salvation is left to God. Maybe I am not “Calvinist” enough, cause I don’t fight or conflict with non-Calvinists in my church. I guess maybe I am more focused on Scripture than systems, but it’s never been that huge of an issue. . .except in Seminary and on blogs. . . and at Pastor’s Lunch with Dave’s Associate Pastor.
Dan,
That has my own personal experience, and that of the people I know as well.
I am curious where all these calvinist pastors are that are killing churches. No association I have been in has had churches killed by calvinists…though many have had bad pastors and have been split or killed. I have about 10 churches in my current association that are dead or have been killed by pastors…none by calvinists or calvinism. My own church has had 3 or 4 splits in its history…none over calvinism. I know 4 churches in my association led by calvinists and all 4 are growing churches…with strong preaching and an emphasis on evangelism.
I remember as a kid, our church split, but it had nothing to do with Calvinism.
Ostrich, here’s the sand.
David
Are you saying that Dan’s church did split because of Calvinism?
Are all church splits because of Calvinism? Are most? Does abstentionism split churches?
How many churches do you know that fired a pastor, and he took a bunch of the congregation with him .. where everybody was a warm fuzzy Southern Baptist?
How many church splits have you heard of, where both sides were warm fuzzy Southern Baptists?
Why doesn’t anybody, in those instances, blame the pastor’s being Baptist in his theology?
You picked a pretty good example of a couple of things, neither of which was Calvinism.
William,
I realize that this is a little side isssue branching off of the main subject, but do you have a serious concern about an elder form of government? I would not classify myself as calvinist, but I do personally believe that the biblical form of church government is elder based. Anyhow, just curious about your thoughts, not trying to start an argument.
Not a side issue at all. I’m happy with our imperfect and sometimes totally dysfunctional congregational governance. I go with the BFM on this one.
Elder-led congregational churches also follow the Baptist Faith and Message.
Do they get that from the line that says that the church’s “scriptural officers are pastors and deacons”?
I am willing to be convinced here but I don’t see it.
William: Most people claim that the term elder is synonymous with the term pastor. That, in fact, is the only interpretation that makes the BFM biblical regarding scriptural offices. Do you disagree?
William, a pastor and an elder are the same thing.
Pastor and Elder aren’t synonymous in the Bible. Churches may define it that way, but they’re not.
The new Testament uses the words Bishop, Elder, and Presbyter (which is closest to the original) interchangeably. In fact, the governing council in the PCA church is the “Presbtery”, composed of presbyters (who are Elders).
Pastor is defined as a “shepherd” .. one who tends a flock. At least that’s how Strong’s concordance lays it out.
Unless you understand pastor as elder, then you cannot say that pastor is a biblical office.
Technically shepherding is a task of an elder, see 1 Peter 5:2.
Pastor/shepherd is not a biblical office, if we are going to be precise. Elder is. So the fact that some are arguing against elders is a little funny. Gotta love traditions.
Bill Mac and Jared,
I think that the BF&M2000 can be legitimately interpreted to “allow” for pastors/elders and deacons as the scriptural offices. I really don’t care whether an autonomous Southern Baptist church chooses to have a pastor/deacon congregational polity or an elder/deacon polity. I do care when folks who belong to churches with one polity argue that their way of doing church is the “only” Biblical way of doing church. I think a strong argument can be made for either model of church governance.
However, the actual language of the BF&M2000 regarding this issue reads, “Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.” It is interesting to note that the 1963 BF&M uses identical language (except it capitalizes Scriptural) whereas the 1925 BF&M reads, “Its Scriptural officers are bishops, or elders, and deacons.”
While I don’t necessarily disagree with either Bill Mac or Jared, I believe one could make a strong case, based on a comparison of the language used in all three documents, that a strict interpretation would lead one to conclude that both the 1963 and 2000 BF&Ms did not envision “elders” in the sense that this term is used today, particularly in Calvinistic Southern Baptist churches. As one who was in Orlando in 2000 and voted in favor of the BF&M2000, I would be curious if anyone believes that including the 1925 language (“bishops, or elders, and deacons”) would have caused problems with passage or would have not caused even so much as a ripple? And, even if you believe that “elders” are perfectly acceptable within SB polity, can you see where the inclusion of “elder” language in the BF&M2000 would have been problematic?
In the end, this is an interesting topic to discuss, but it has absolutely no affect on the local, autonomous church because the BF&M2000 is a confession of faith and not a creed. For that I am thankful. Otherwise, I would run afoul of those who strictly interpret believer’s baptism by immersion as a prerequisite to observing the Lord’s Supper. 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Thanks for the greek lesson guys…
I don’t think that the BFM language had in mind the current expression of elder rule that I have seen in some calvinistic churches.
…but that can be another topic.
Howell: I don’t have much of a problem with the term pastor in the BFM, although I think elder is more accurate. However I do have a problem with the idea, that I have heard more than once, that elder-led churches are not in accord with the BFM. If that is the case, why aren’t we disfellowshipping them?
But in what sense do you mean that the BFM framers didn’t envision elders as we see them today? Do you mean plurality? Or elder – rule? Because I would really like to know how many SBC churches practice elder-rule, as opposed to elder-led congregationalism. I know elder-rule is a big bogeyman in SBC life right now, but I doubt the threat is as great as it is made out to be.
It is also ironic that there is so much opposition to elder-rule when the SBC is so obviously agog over mega-churches, whose polity is essentially elder-ruled.
William wrote: “Thanks for the greek lesson guys…
I don’t think that the BFM language had in mind the current expression of elder rule that I have seen in some calvinistic churches.”
Sorry for letting the text itself guide my understanding of biblical polity. Now I know better.
Jason, I owe you lunch…again.
Pastor/elder/overseer is seminary 101. There hasn’t been much debate on this prior to the rise in popularity of calvinism. Like I said, might be a good topic.
William, that may have been a little bit harsher than I intended. My intent was to match your sarcasm, not be a jerk. I hope you understand. I can see where that might have been to harsh a comeback. But I think you get my point.
William? Sarcastic? Say it ain’t so, Jason. Never.
Nice to see that there are some willing to admit they put the BFM first, and every other source of guidance as secondary.
I do not doubt that there are pastors that are Calvinist that have been a primary cause in the splitting of a church. There are probably more pastors that model William’s story than any of us would care to admit. And I am guessing that you could easily replace every instance of the word Calvinism in William’s post with about any other word and it would still be the case.
The problem in this instance (and the many like it) is not Calvinism per se but the way that this brothers Calvinism is held. I dare say that had God given me a pastorate when I first “converted” to holding the doctrines of grace I probably would have split the church. I was an absolute jerk in my Calvinism. I did not hold the doctrines of grace, in a gracious manner.
Thankfully the Lord in His wisdom did not give me a pastorate but kept me in a station of little influence where He softened my character and taught me gospel humility. Doctrinally, my soteriology (Calvinism) has not changed much over the past 7-8 years (nor has my ecclessiology related to Calvinism). However, my heart has been greatly changed.
I think those of us that hold to the doctrines of grace can learn from William and others as they ask these questions. Might we use them to spur us on to be more gracious and to truly hold these doctrines humbly and graciously.
Having said all of this I do have a problem with the oft repeated claim that us Calvinists ought to be up front and tell our churches exactly what we believe and that we had better not try to change our churches.
Firstly, as I believe I have demonstrated the problem is not Calvinism but the way that it is held. If I am ever asked in an interview what my beliefs on “Calvinism” are then I say, “what do you mean by Calvinism”. After hearing their definition I can then respond in kind, and then lay out what I believe without a potential misunderstanding of a label.
Secondly, while I know that my Calvinism shapes about everything in my pastorate, I’m not convinced that it should be a scarlet C that I should wear around my neck. If we truly believe that this is an issue that is secondary (and it will of course have a bearing on many ways that we preach and read Scripture, etc.) then why if I hold my Calvinism with humility and my goal is to see people come to the Lord Jesus, to glorify God, and to deepen in their level of enjoyment and not to convert them to Calvinism would my soteriology (which fits within the Baptism F&M) disqualify me from the pastorate? It is true that if some churches knew that a guy was a Calvinist he may not be hired. And in many instances it is probably not because of Calvinism itself but because Calvinism (in my opinion wrongly) carries without the almost the same negative connotation as adulterer would.
Lastly, concerning the “don’t try to change the churches” mentality. I do not get that. Maybe I am misunderstanding–that is certainly possible–but part of leading and growing is changing. Yes, if my goal is to ram Reformed theology down people’s throats unwillingly and that I won’t be satisfied until every person is more Calvinistic than Calvin–then, yes, by all means don’t let me be a pastor. But if I am convinced that Calvinism is just a label that we have attached to what the Bible says about salvation what kind of spineless goon would I be if I did not want people to come to know Christ and his gospel in this way? If it is something that I believe leads to great comfort, joy, and a more lively relationship with Jesus then I had better hope that the people God has called me to shepherd embrace the doctrines of grace! Of course, I do so as a gentle and loving shepherd that knows that sometimes those that God has called to my charge are going to settle instead for safer grass of familiarity. And I would hope that my Arminian brothers would have the conviction to do the same if they found themselves planted in a church that was full of Calvinistic error.
Sorry for the long post. Dave, if you think it necessary feel free to cut and paste this and make it its own article.
There are 5pt. CALVINISTS, who believe its a good thing to convert everyone to CALVINISM. It plays a major part in their preaching and teaching…major part.
Then, there are fellas, who are Calvinistic in their theology. They preach and teach the Bible from that perspective, of course…but, you wouldnt even know they were 5 pt. calvinists, unless you talked to them privately.
I know of a fella, who is a very good Pastor and Preacher, who is a 5 pt. calvinist. No one in our Association knows that he is….his church doesnt know that he is…..I have heard him preach many times, and he preaches and teaches the Bible… does a great job.
I know of another fella….and all you hear….just about…are the 5 points….about the wrongness of invitations…about Arminians….about semi-Pelagianism, etc, etc, etc.
Get the difference.
His church doesn’t know he is a Calvinist? Shouldn’t they?
He probably should have told them at the very beginning. He didnt. He’s been the Pastor of this church for the past 20 years, at this point. He just preaches the Gospel and teaches the Bible….he doesnt try to shove 5 pt. CALVINISM down their throats.
David
Most calvinists pastors don’t try and shove anything down the people’s throats.
I told the people at my church what I believe on every key issue, but I never used the term calvinism…because, other than on here, I never use the word calvinism.
I teach the Bible. period.
The reason why churches split is for one plain and simple reason….SIN!!!!!!!!
Sure that sin may take different forms. In some cases it may very well be due to the aggressive Calvinism expressed by a Pastor. In other cases it is due to fights over the color of the sanctuary carpet. I have heard stories of churches having problems because the pastor invited “blacks” and/or “hispanics” to be baptized and become members.
These are just a few of the secondary reasons why churches split. So tell me why “Calvinsm” as a cause should get any more attention than any the others? Why are we not talking about the churches that have problems and split because of the racism expressed either by the pastor or the congregation? I would wager to bet that happens just as, if not more often (especially historically) than any problem/split due to Calvinism. Shoot, I even heard a story where a pastor got fired because he had Theology books in his office, a member thought they were “theory of god” (note the little “g”) and that member who was influential in the congregation got him kicked out without the chance to explain himself. Yes that is a serious story related by a professor at Seminary that happened to a previous student of his.
Again it all boils down to sin. And until we ALL, pastors and congregations alike, start acting more God like, rather than flesh led, we will keep having these problems, whether the issues is Calvinism, race, or the color of the carpet.
I admit to a degree of sarcasm in my piece and apologize to Dave Miller for it. That bit of humor that may not have added anything to the thing. Elders firing the pastor and the pastor’s reconversion to congregational rule made this an irresistable story.
I’m hearing the argument flawed calvinism or calvinism as expressed by immature pastors is the culprit here. Perhaps so, but I’m not satisfied that proper calvinism as expressed by a mature pastor is acceptable in many churches.
Elder rule is an issue. If a calvinist believes that is how a church should be governed he should absolutely tell the search committee that this is one of the things he will try to do. It would be dishonest not to disclose that.
I also appreciate people like Mike Leake and Rick who recognize that there are things that need to be clear between a church and prospective pastor.
Calvinism was hallway debate stuff 30 years ago in seminary. I didn’t encounter it in the field until 15 or so years ago. Now it is regular fare in conversations among pastors and denominational folks. Prominent people in SBC life see it as an issue. Why? I think primarily because of what they see in stuff like this case I presented.
Is the problem the lack of age and experience among calvinist pastors; that is, the recent increase in popularity means that a good proportion of the brethren haven’t had time to go through a process like Mike Leake? That’s the best explanation I can come up with.
I’m just turned 30 in July…not sure what that does for your theory. LOL.
Maybe it just holds that some people mature faster than others. 🙂
I have know plenty of “mature” adults who were far from it.
William, you keep calling it “elder rule.” The Calvinists I know in the sbc are all congregationalists, and their churches are elder-LEAD. You’re making a straw-man argument. I don’t know of any SBC churches that are elder-ruled. The only churches I know that are “ruled” beyond congregationalism are those churches where either the deacons rule or the deacons and the pastor rule together. However, none of these churches are Calvinists. Maybe I should blame non-Calvinism for deacon-rule? Deacon-rule violates the BF&M; and it’s a bigger problem in the sbc than elder-rule. I think you’re just looking for a reason to be against Calvinism. You’re “weary” of Calvinists because you stereotype Calvinists based on a few you’ve observed. Yet, I don’t see you stereotyping yourself with non-Calvinists that have done stupid things. It’s very convenient for you to blame Calvinism for splits without blaming non-Calvinism for splits.
This is exactly right, Jared. Many pastor/deacons non-Calvinist Southern Baptist churches are not even deacon-rule though, they are committee ruled, committees that may have women as their heads. At my home church, women served regularly on the personnel committee, sometimes as the leader, causing them functionally to be the power that stood behind the pastor.
William…just looking for a reason to be against Calvinism?
Uh, no. William is just taking stuff that is handed to him. You might also recall that I’m the guy, the only one here, who has an article, “Why I like Calvinists.” I may have to rethink that one. 😉
William, how can you stereotype all Calvinists based on only a few; and yet, refuse to stereotype all non-Calvinists based on the ones that have split churches?
You’re not being balanced or consistent in the least.
Dave Miller is my kind of calvinist. How’s that for balance? You say I’m stereotyping. I’m merely expressing wariness (and that consistently) based on my experiences with calvinists.
The eye on my range top is dangerous at times, helpful at times, neither most of the time. I know enough to be wary of it because of the first.
William, yet again… how about you stereotype non-Calvinists the same way you stereotype Calvinists?
I don’t see how you’re being “balanced.” How about you write a post “Why I’m weary of non-Calvinists?”
I think he was wary of Calvinists but after this post he may well be weary as well. 😉
Bill Mac, bravo.
The most blatant examples of Baptist churches eschewing congregational polity that I can think of involve mega-churches whose pastors are neither proponents of a plurality of elders nor are they 5 point Calvinists.
I’d rather see a system where the congregation elects a group of elders, or where the pastors serve as a team of elders, than a system where there’s one ruling elder and lip service is paid to congregational polity.
I don’t have any direct experience of Calvinists splitting churches, but I know Charismatics have devastated churches here in the north. Also Independent Baptists coming in to SBC churches. Oh yeah, and KJV-onlyists. We obviously need to be wary of these type of pastors.
William: In all honesty, what is the message? What do you hope we take away from your post?
I don’t think any of you would aruge with this: A considerable segment of informed SBC life has some degree of reservation about Calvinists?
It may be helpful to know some of the reasons why this is so.
William, whenever evangelists, blogs like sbctomorrow, and documents like “how to smoke out your Calvinist pastor” encourage churches to be scared of Calvinism, it creates a firestorm where one shouldn’t exist. Most of the people I know that are against Calvinism, are really against things that I don’t even believe. In other words, they’re not against Calvinism, they’re against the caricatured inaccuracies being propagated by anti-Calvinists.
William, why are you not weary of non-Calvinists since they have obviously split more churches than Calvinists in the sbc? I suppose it’s because you’re a non-Calvinist?
No, Jared. These things are products of the experiences these people have had with calvinistic pastors. You may build a solid argument that such are an overreaction but not that they created the problems.
And I don’t believe I’ve ever said I am “weary” of calvinists. I am WARY of calvinists.
William, call it what it is… stereotyping all based on a few observations.
You however refuse to stereotype non-Calvinists.
William, I think what Jared is pointing out is that, for example, if only 2 or 3 out of every 10 church splits may be attributed to Calvinism in some way; then it is only fair to be wary of non-Calvinist pastors too. It is only fair to generalize/stereotype non-Calvinists in the same manner.
The argument that never ends…well, I asked for it.
Calvinist pastors have acquired a reputation in some SBC areas because of church squabbles and splits. The situation I describe in this topic is another of a series.
The point is not that ALL calvinists cause these problems but that a notable number do. The causes include calvinistic theology and practices, perhaps mixed with a heavy portion of immaturity or leadership issues.
The way these situations evolve and are described come right out of calvinism. Calvinism is central to the problems – agressive preaching of irresistable grace or election, imposition of elder governance.
Call it stereotyping, pastoring-while-calvinist or whatever.
William,
What I would really love to see from you is not stories of Calvinst pastors and churches that split because of them, but instead, what I think would be helpful is an article explaining how Calvinism itself (not straw man Calvinism) leads to what you are describing. I’ve yet to see how the theology itself may have a tendency towards “these problems”. I’m willing to listen and learn. I’d even love to see historical examples. But again it can’t be things like person X was a jerk…he was also a Calvinist. Therefore, calvinism makes people jerks.
I’d rather see stories from William about how Churches were brought together internally, not so much ‘in spite of’ diversity, but out of respect for diversity.
That means a ‘no fear, no pride’ zone . . . I think the first Christians would have seen it as keeping the sacred Peace of Christ among themselves, something they regarded very highly as a mark of His Church, and as a mark that would help non-believers to recognize them as Christ-followers.
“It may be helpful to know some of the reasons why this is so.”
William: With all due respect, perhaps it is, at least in part, because of posts like this one.
You mean because of posts that tell of experiences some churches have had with calvinistic pastors? Well…yes, but the problem is not with the post but with the experience it relates.
William, why is Calvinism to blame? Whenever a non-Calvinist church splits, do you blame non-Calvinism? Nope. Yet, it’s the fault of a “Calvinist” pastor in this instance? I don’t think his Calvinism is the culprit; possibly arrogance, lack of love, etc.?
For the sake of balance, why don’t you post an article sharing a story about how a non-Calvinist pastor split a church? Surely you know one. Tell us why we should be wary of non-Calvinists as well.
Jared, how about if I say that calvinism is never the blame but only calvinism as expressed by some calvinists? Calvinism isn’t atmospheric. It comes from those who adhere to it.
Like I said the elder business doesn’t come from Sword of the Lord, nor does the belief that people go to hell and there’s nothing they can do about it…stuff like that.
William,
I don’t think you grasp what some of us are saying about this. It is not that anyone is denying that calvinists have and will split churches…it’s just that you cannot assume that it was the calvinist’s calvinism that split the church rather than something else. That is why Jared’s point is dead on, and you keep avoiding it. When a non-calvinist splits a church (and this happens FAR more often than calvinists), you wouldn’t assume it was his lack of calvinism that split it.
Can a church split over calvinism? Sure. I am sure it happened. But you cannot assume that is the only reason or even main reason a church splits under a calvinist pastor. What if he is just a jerk? What if he tried to change too much? Too fast? What of they didn’t like the new music? What if he got rid of the WMU? What if he was too authoritarian? What if he got on the bad side of the key deacon? There are a TON of reasons a church might split, some are even healthy reasons (a factor that has not been mentioned). Don’t assume anything about it.
Did it ever occur to you folks that every one makes mistakes and egregious blunders and some even sin. Study the Apostle Paul for lessons galore on the whole subject. Look at his set-to with Barnabas over Mark. I have been at this for years and I know of plenty of Calvinists who did dumb things. I have even done some of them myself. The same is just as true for Arminians.
Let us turn aside for a moment for an illustration of goofs on both sides of the fence. Consider how I felt at knowing of one moderate group that failed to handle a sexual sin approriately. Why I thought thqt goes with their theology and methodology. Then I ran into one who did it right. I also ran into people who believed in Sovereign Grace who did it wrong on the sexual sins issue. Then I found I could not blame their theology and methodology without blaming myself for error.
The truth is that there is no guarantee, nothing of proof against sin and failure, except the Lord Himself. While I believe the Gospel of Sovereign Grace is the theology of the Great Awakenings and of the launching of the Great Century of Missions, I also know of many adherents to it who violated the very heart of such theology by ungodly conduct and behavior. We must remember that Judas was one of the Twelve Apostles, one who heard the truth in all of its purity for three years, one who preached it, one who evidently saw miracles in his minsitry. None of which kept him from selling Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.
Look at Corinth founded by the one most think of as the greatest of Apostles (though he thought of himself as the least of the Apostles). Immorality, cliques, lawsuits, drunkenness at the Lord’s Supper, Pride and Arrogance even in expressions of devotion to Christ (“I am of Christ”). What was Paul’s solution under the leadership of the Holy Spirit? I am determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified (ICors.2:2). Even though the Corinthian believers were worldly, carnal, whatever you think approriate to describe them, yet the Apostle gave them the greatest thing ever penned on Agape love, I Cors. 13.
I remember in my first church which was rent by the firing of a pastor who had been fired for perversion. Some believed it. Some did not. God led me to preach from I Cors. among other scripture. AFter two years and two months or so, I left, and the chairman of deacons thought I had done them a good job.
The next pastorate I did a poor job. The third a good job, and the fourth I got fired…Concerning the fourth, the moderator of the meeting in which I ws fired said to me, “Well, we couldn’t find anything wrong with you, but we fired you anyway.” You can get canned even when you do the best job you can possibly do. Then you have to remember our Lord and Savior was crucified by the very people to whom He was sent, and, if we condemn them too harshly, we have to remember that our sins helped to nail Him there.
I am not offended by this blogger’s remarks as I know of people who are just like the ones he mentions, but, unlike him, I also know of others of other theological persuasions who have made just as big goofs as the Calvinists whom he mentions.
Misunderstanding of of theology are common enough occurrences. Here we have the return to a theology of long ago, one lacking examples in many instances of how to preach and practice it. I had the advantage of having examples, and I also studeid the biographies of those in the past. Having examples and studies of those in the past will help one to avoid making dumb mistakes like those mentioned by the bloggger and by your truly, providing one has the right aim in mind and the willingness to pay the price to maintain that aim (the glory of God).
There are no short cuts, and some advocates of Sovereign Grace think it is a short cut???? The very heart of this theology is that it takes the hard long way home, the way of sacrifice, of fulfilling the demands of the law to the point of death. Christ did not die thqt we might take short cuts and have it easy. He died that we might live sacrificially. As Paul said, “I die daily.”
If you all had studied American Social and Intellectual History which begins with the Puritans, you would have been introduced to a people who were very stubborn and committed, willing to pay any price, suffer any lost, cost what it might. They made mistakes, big and grievous mistakes, but they also earned a reputation, one that the Intellectual Historians I studied honored; they noted their resolute persistence, their sense of commitment, their irrevocable hope that nothing could dim, no disaster could defeat. And they could take criticism, from themselves and from others. You hear of the Salem Witchcraft trials. But did you ever hear that the Puritans criticized themselves for such stupid error and blunder? Did you know how many thousands in England and Europe were tried and executed for witchcraft in comparison to the 22 (?) in New England? Have you ever read how they developed an antislavery view?
Here we are drawing nigh to the time of a Third Great Awakening..even though there is a conspiracy trying to stop it by collapsing the economy of whole world in order to plunge us into chaos so it can gain control over the saints and squash them with the state, and we are not willing to look criticism in the eye and say, “If I deserve it, say what you will. If I don’t deserve it, what you say will not matter…except to be of benefit in the Lord’s eyes?” A bright outlook will do more good for us…especially in the light of criticism deserved or undeserved. If the former, then we can correct ourselves. If the latter, it will earn us a great reputation in the eyes of others.
I just find this whole thing funny. It is clear from the example above that the problem is the pastor himself, not his theology. A secondary factor may be the people, but still not a particular theology.
It is rather convenient to blame calvinism…and it displays the bias of the observer.
Some would have you believe that all church splits are due to calvinism, or at least all calvinists will cause church splits.
It sounds oddly similar to the charge a few years back that it was the fault of calvinists that churches were dying and baptisms were declining.
I guess this is the new charge against calvinists. The anti-evangelism charge doesn’t work anymore, so they’ve moved on to this one.
All these posts on a Wednesday night. Do very many of my fellow Southern Baptists not go to church on Wednesday nights anymore?
As for the post, Jason nailed it right out of the gate. It just goes to show that good theology doesn’t always yield wisdom.
I hear a lot of people on here espousing that the search committee’s and the the pastoral candidate should have big ‘sit down’ and discuss where they each are concerning Calvinism.
This would be great except you guys are leaving out one small detail.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF SEARCH COMMITTEES AREN’T ABLE TO HAVE AN EDUCATED CONVERSATION ABOUT IT!
Been there, done that, didn’t get the T-Shirt.
Howell Scott:
“While I don’t necessarily disagree with either Bill Mac or Jared, I believe one could make a strong case, based on a comparison of the language used in all three documents, that a strict interpretation would lead one to conclude that both the 1963 and 2000 BF&Ms did not envision “elders” in the sense that this term is used today, particularly in Calvinistic Southern Baptist churches.”
Howell, the way that many Southern Baptist Calvinists use the term elders is as synonymous with pastors, so how does the 1963 and 2000 BF&M not envision it?
Chris,
First, I am not arguing that the BF&M2000 does not allow for a plurality of elders governance as well as a single “senior pastor” model (with Associate pastors if you will). Personally, I believe that both terms can be used interchangeably. However, I think that in the climate of today, and perhaps even in 2000 when the lastest BF&M was adopted, if the specific language would have included the term “elders, then I personally think that would have been problematic on the floor of the Convention.
I perhaps am looking at this from my legal perspective regarding “legislative intent” based on the two previous versions of the BF&M and what was included and excluded along the way. Hope that helps answer your question. Do you think that including “elders” language would have caused problems with the passage of the BF&M2000 or would it have been much ado about nothing? Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Why would adding “elders” to the BFM have been problematic? The scholarship of the BFM committee should have through in explaining the biblical position for including elders. Do you know if anyone on the 2000 committee has ever argued that pastors and elders are mutually exclusive offices?
Maybe your point speaks more to how biblically uninformed some SBCers are if they would have objected to the term elders being added.
Mark,
There are two issues at play in this dialogue concerning elders/pastors. The first, which I have already stated my agreement, is that from a theological perspective, there should have been no problem of using the same language as the 1925 BF&M (“bishops, or elders, and deacons”) because elder, bishop, pastor can and have been used interchangeably.
The second issue at play and, the one which I believe would have been problematic in 2000, is the political one. Given how many within the SBC have stongly negative feelings about “elders,” regardless of whether those feelings are rooted in fact, I think would have posed difficulties for the BF&M2000 Study Committee. I’m not sure I would view people as “biblically uniformed” as much as I would say that there are a great many SBCers who, as William has once again pointed out in his OP, who have a negative view of anything Calvinistic.
In a Convention in which any type of elder-led/elder-ruled polity is in the minority, I think the inclusion of elders within the actual language of the BF&M2000 would have caused more of an uproar. Perhaps the Committee let well enough alone and decided to use the 1963 language without calling undue attention to this point. I doubt that anyone on the Committee did argue that pastors and elders are mutually exclusive (because that would be a hard biblical argument to make), but they may not have wanted to have to talk about elders and women pastors at the same time 😉 Hope that helps clarify. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I think the use of the phrases “elder-led” or “edler-ruled” are in the minority. But practically speaking, most churches are either led by a pastor (single-elder) or team of pastors (plurality of elders) or by a team of leaders that includes pastors (also a plurality of elders). Heck, many churches are led by “deacons” who basically act as “elders”.
The names may be different, but the functionality is often the same.
If that is true, and I believe it is, then why shouldn’t we seek to tweak those models into the exact function prescribed in scripture, and call the position what God does?
Howell,
Thanks for your reply and your guesses as to why elders were not included in the BFM2K. 🙂
I wonder what happen to SBC claims of biblicism? Maybe that’s only good on blog discussions.
Howell,
I think that you are probably right about the reason the term pastors is used instead of elders. There are folks, like the author of the post above, who do not understand the concept and would take offense. Why do this, when pastor means the same thing. We do not have to use a term and list all of its synonyms in order for the confession to serve its purpose. Moreover, when one term is chosen it does not negate its synonyms. So, I am saying that, if an elder is the same thing as a pastor, which it is, then the BF&M envisions the elder, because it envisions the pastor.
By saying the author of the post above, I do not mean Mark, but the writer of the blog. Sorry Mark if it appeared I was talking about you.
Chris,
Thanks for the reply. I probably should have used a different word other than “envisioning” when talking about this issue. I think what I said to Mark is one of the main reasons that the word “elders” was not used in the BF&M2000. I am only speculating because the records of the BF&M2000 Study Committee are probably sealed as well, 😉 but there was probably some political calculations and compromise involved regarding some of the articles. If elders and pastors are typically seen as the same office (which I think they are), it would have been counter-productive — from a political standpoint — for the Committee to have even raised the issue. They didn’t need to. If they had back then, there may have been more initial fighting, but there would certainly be more clarity now. God bless,
Howell
Chris,
I understood you. You stated, “There are folks, like the author of the post above, who do not understand the concept [of elders and pastors being the same] and would take offense.”
I just have to ask if the problem is that this subject was not studied in seminary? Or once one becomes a pastor is scholarship out the window? What gives? 🙂
Confirmation bias much?
If I may interject…I have my own “you can’t make this up” anecdote to add.
I am not a Calvinist. Not yet, anyway. I see my duty as a pastor, especially as an associate pastor, to teach our people the Bible. Sounds innocuous enough, right? You might think so, until one summer I decided to challenge myself to be expository like all my seminary profs had hounded us to do. So I talked to my senior pastor and decided to really swing for the fence – I decided to teach through Romans on the theme of “Basic Christian Doctrine.” A nice, big book with lots of juicy stuff for us to learn together, challenging me to stick with it!
I got as far as the the first part of Romans 2 before “you can’t make this up” came into play.
One of our trustees got it into her head that I wasn’t teaching the Bible, but secretly teaching Calvinism. Never mind that I had recently talked about “free will” and “choosing Jesus” among other non-Calvinistic views of the subject. She quietly organized the other trustees against me and deceived our senior pastor, who knows where I stand on the issue of Calvinism. All sorts of false accusations and twisting of my words proceeded to happen. She very nearly succeeded in getting me fired and I actually had to fight for my job.
After God allowed me to save my job, as time went on it became more and more clear to my pastor and our trustees that they had been taken advantage of and I had been wronged. This trustee continued to marginalize herself within the church as people began to react negatively to her attitude and behavior. Finally, she was told by our senior pastor that if she didn’t like how we were running things, she could leave. She did just that.
It came out after this that the very teaching I had been doing out of Romans was shaking her faith – I had been exposing wrong beliefs in her life that she had lived her entire Christian life never questioning. So she invented the excuse of Calvinism to scare everyone.
Irony of ironies, she is now a member of a church where the pastor and staff are, if not 5 pointers, heavily Calvinistic.
So yeah, when Calvinists question whether or not Calvinism is the real reason for all these “splits” and drama in churches, I tend to agree with them. Because when a non-Calvinist gets falsely accused to further someone’s agenda against their pastor, you just can’t make that up.
I teach the Bible verse by verse…and have done so in every church of which I’ve been a Pastor. I have pastored 5 churches. No one has ever accused me of being a 5 pt. Calvinist, or trying to ram 5 pt. Calvinism down thier throat. Of course, I’m not a 5 pt. Calvinist.
I have heard of many, many Churches that had strife, or were actually split…due to a 5 pt. Calvinist Pastor coming in…and trying to convert the church to 5 pt. Calvinism…many churches in the Mid South area where I live…W. TN, NW MS, NW Arkansas, the bootheel of MO. I can name them. I know them. I know people, who went thru it. I am personally aware of what happened in them.
So, yall can bury your heads in the sand if you want to, but it happens….too much….
David
Let me ask this–do you see the problem as Calvinism or of these pastors trying to ram their particular theological convictions and ecclesilogy (which I spelled wrong) down that church’s throat? Because I see it as the former not the latter. I’m a 5 pointer and I can say with a totally clear conscience that I would have no interest in moving a church to not having congregational votes on business nor would I expect everyone to agree with me about all my theological convictions. I can’t believe that I’m an anomoly (again, spelled wrong) in that regard. Surely there are more out there like me.
Joe,
I dont know, Brother, except to say that as long as you told the Church where you stand on issues that might be controversial….and the church was fine with it….then, amen. Go for it.
But, these fellas going into churches….knowing that the churches are not tulip churches…with the express intent on converting those churches to tulip….happens way too often….and it causes major strife and even division.
David
David, let me know how the sand feels. I might want to join you after reading this entire thread. 😉
Stephen,
What you say can’t be true. Church splits are always the fault of the pastor and are always due to calvinism. Period. The end.
(Thanks for sharing your story. I know of similar stories of accusations by church members who want someone fired so they invent offenses and things like this. Sadly, it is pretty common.)
David: My knowledge of church splits that occur under Calvinist pastors is similar to yours. Calvinism and elders may be more related that some think. Church members often perceive Calvinists as setting themselves up in a higher echelon of God’s favor. Elders are chosen for their maturity, life-style, etc., which, again, sets them apart, and, in the eyes of some church members, ABOVE the rest. Neither may be the case, but for some church members, perception is truth, hence the strife.
Richard,
So is their problem with deacons or pastoral staff for the same reason in those churches?
Or is the problem with Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus? Where the Holy Spirit, through Paul, sets apart 2 offices in the church, and states the expectations of maturity and life-style for those men.
It seems the problem, in that situation, is with the Bible, not with elders or calvinism.
If that church split over that reason, it is NOT because of calvinism or elders. You see what I am saying?
A quick couple of drive-by thoughts:
1. Yes, there are churches that get split by Calvinist pastors. Sometimes by Calvinist pastors that are trying to bend everyone to their will. Where I take exception is the great, unquantifiable “many, many” churches—how many is that? I’ve been in the Mid-South for 10 years and know of a few, maybe even some churches—but “many, many”?
2. While we’re swapping anonymized, sanitized anecdotes that only show our side of the story, I’ve had friends terminated by churches over their “Calvinism.” One was terminated by a church, here in the Mid-South Area, for preaching that God saves people from all races and ethnic groups. The deacons (actually about 3 of them) then forced him out and told other churches that he had been stirring up Calvinist heresy. Actually, he had been fighting their ingrained racism. So, what really caused the problem?
Likewise with some pastors that have gotten in trouble by pushing “elder-rule:” that complaint was leveled against me for suggesting that church decisions be made by those who were spritiually mature instead of a group of selfish people who wanted to use the church for their own gain (like hosting sales parties or dance classes in it—not as ministries, as their businesses). Since I suggested that “majority rules” should not override the church being a church, I was accused of seeking an elder-reinforced dictatorship.
Yes, churches get split by Calvinist pastors. Churches get split by non-Calvinist pastors. Churches get split by selfish church members, too.
The idea that only one of those groups deserves “being wary” of is what has some of us worked up. If I were to write a counter point, showing why we should all “be wary” of any one that fits X category and shape it to fit some of you, you’d be incensed.
How about, “I know churches split by Southwestern Seminary grads” so we should be wary of all with SWBTS on their degree? It’s true, I do know some. I know of it from MABTS, SBTS, SEBTS, and NOBTS. In fact, the worst racist pastor I ever dealt with came from NOBTS. Let’s all be wary of anyone that ever went to that school…more church splits are actually caused by seminary graduate pastors, so let’s be wary of anyone with a seminary degree.
Oh, but that’s too broad of a brush, isn’t it? Because they’re not all the same. Neither are Calvinists. Nor are non-Calvinists. Pastors should be honest with those they are working with—but churches should also realize that the goal is for the church to grow and mature. Would you fault a pastor for leading a church to a stronger view on inerrancy? Creation vs. evolution? Spiritual gifts?
Weak on evangelism? Should a pastor not try to change that? Calvinism was a part of the theology of Adinoram Judson, Charles Spurgeon, and a host of other Baptist missionaries and soul-winners. It’s not incompatible with Baptist life and thought. It’s not impossible for George Whitfield and John Wesley to preach together though they disagree—why the need to burn out all the Calvinists?
Doug: Stop bringing logic and reason into this discussion.
(Good post!)
Doug,
I know of churches…many churches in the Mid South area… where THE MAIN ISSUE was the Pastor trying to convert the church to CALVINISM. There was no other issue.
I can name at least 6 churches right off the top of my head, and I’ve heard of others…a lot of others.
So, yall can try to call it whatever you wish, and you can try to bury your heads in the sand…but it happens a lot. In fact, while finishing typing this, I just thought of 2 more churches in MS where this happened.
Okay, believe me, or not. I can name the churches. I can name most of the Pastors. I can give you phone numbers of the people, who went thru the ordeal.
David
Given that you can think of 8 churches, I guess your definition of “a lot” is way different from mine.
I can think of 8 churches that fired the pastor and split over other things, some that were real stupid. How about the church in East Arkansas that fired their pastor because he wouldn’t participate in the Community Easter Service because the Mormon Bishop was due to preach from the the Baptist pulpit and he wouldn’t allow it?
They called him a stubborn, abusive Calvinist to the DOM when it happened. That could be one of your 8. Should we swap real names?
I’ve seen more than 20 churches split over the leadership styles that Mid-America Seminary grads have shown up in the church with. All of them staunch anti-Calvinists. I’ve seen a church split over the pastor not standing up against a staff member caught in immorality—he was a Southwestern grad, staunch anti-Calvinist. Shall we go on?
The point is that churches split over things other than a pastor who thinks God is sovereign over salvation at least as often, if not more often, as they do over that. That decrying all who hold to understanding the Bible in manner strictly over the bad apples is not the way to fix the issue and is not the way any other group in the SBC is treated.
There are pastors that would split a church over carpet color. There are deacons that would fire a pastor, leading to a church split, over how often he cuts the grass at the parsonage. I’ve got names but not phone numbers for both of those.
This is where this discussion goes: my anecdotes can match your anecdotes. My experiences can match yours, my horror stories and SBC urban legends can counter yours. You’ll never accept that it’s not the simple answer. That calling a Calvinist-type as a pastor does not guarantee church strife. I don’t see proof that the Calvinism is the source of the strife.
I haven’t seen it in my time as a pastor: my strife in the last church was for telling the deacons that they existed to serve the church, not to backseat drive and not to go back and undo things the church had voted on in business meeting. Where I am now, it’s not a problem. Why?
Because I preach that we ought to be witnessing to the lost. Serving the community. Obeying the Scriptures. And allowing God to work in the lives of people both within and outside of the church. I’ve rarely (if ever) quoted Calvin and probably won’t. I give an invitation. I preach that you must decide what to do with Christ and His command to follow Him.
That I my understanding is that God has to work in the hearts of the lost first, before they can respond, that doesn’t seem to hurt anything. It drives me to spend more time in prayer, begging God to draw, than I spend learning the newest, greatest witnessing technique.
So, if those factors drive me from the SBC, I’ll go. I wrestled with this from the first college Founder’s Society guy, who I flat rebuffed, until a few years ago. It was 15 years of studying Scripture, considering how I saw God at work in the Bible and in the world today. Had never read Grudem or MacArthur on the subject, never listened to Tom Ascol make his case. Still haven’t read anything by RC Sproul or Al Mohler on this subject. But I do it see it this way, now.
I’ve never really tried to persuade someone to be a Calvinist. Didn’t try with my friend who is a Free Will Baptist pastor (and member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians). Why?
If you’re a blood-bought follower of Christ, is it truly my concern how you understand this? Can you not read the Word of God for yourself? And if the Word supports differing human understandings, can you and I not spend our effort on the parts that brook no argument?
That they cannot call on Him they have not heard? That it is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgment? That the Great Commission is given to the people who follow Christ and that in our responsibility and joyous privilege as His, we are to go and tell? That if one plants and another waters, we can trust God to grant the increase?
In all, the whole of these stories shows me this: we are woefully pathetic in the SBC in discipling church members and raising up new church leadership. If those who are mature enough to be pastors and mature enough to be on pastor search committees cannot converse with each other truthfully and adequately regarding leadership of the church, the whole system is doomed to failure. Why?
Because as a few others have said: we’re bringing in pastors on looks and charisma, not sound doctrine and Biblical qualification. The solution isn’t training a search committee to catch a buzzword like “Calvinist” or “complementarian” or “egalitarian” or even “conservative.” It’s in faithful people, the royal priesthood that is the redeemed, learning the Word, praying for wisdom, and growing. You could amend the BFM at New Orleans in such a way to drive out every Calvinist pastor, and you’d have the same church split statistics if you don’t fix the real issues at hand.
For now, the divisive nature of people in the SBC reveals itself through many ways, and one of the most public is “Calvinist-Reformed-Founders-Whatever-tag-it-needs.” Take that away and what remains will still fight. The ones that go away will still fight.
Because we’re fighting over Romans and haven’t paid a lick of attention to James.
Well said, Doug.
Is there a difference between CALVINISM and Calvinism?
Just wondering… 🙂
William said:
“I don’t think that the BFM language had in mind the current expression of elder rule that I have seen in some calvinistic churches.”
Do you deny that there is a distinction between elder-ruled and elder-led? Several have contended in their responses that most Southern Baptist Calvinists believe in an elder-led congregationalism not in an elder-ruled polity.
I hear those phrases tossed about, Chris. The devil is in the details.
Does the fact that many churches are deacon-led (clearly unbiblical) bother you? Does it cause you to get rid of deacons?
Does the fact that many churches are led by one pastor, who leads as a dictator, bother you? Does it cause you to write off single-pastor led churches?
Or is it just the word “elder” that bothers you? Do most larger churches not function as “elders” though it may be called a “pastoral team”?
Yes, the devil is in the details. But you seem to be flying past the details to rail against something in an inconsistent manner.
Its not Elder led that bothers anyone that I know…Elders are Pastors….and a church should be Elder/Pastor led. Deacons should be there to help the Pastors minister to people, and to help solve problems…just like they did in the NT Church.
Its Elder ruled Churches…aka, Presbyterian style govt…which is the problem.
David
Where are all of these elder-ruled SBC churches?
David: What is Presbyterian style government? How is it run? I hear this yet I see no explanation of what a Presbyterian style is. Do you know exactly?
David: That’s true, perhaps for you, but we have heard that having elders at all violates the BFM. The author of this post has said it. Les Puryear has said it. To quote someone, “we’re not making this up”.
I’d like someone, anyone, to name 10 Southern Baptist churches that are elder-ruled, that is officially elder-ruled (disqualifying standard SBC megachurches).
Churches that have a pastor, elders, and deacons seems to not square with the BFM. The subject is worthy its own discussion. This is a matter that gets about as many permutations as there are churches that employ elders.
William,
I am open to correction. Prove to me from the details that the majority of Southern Baptist churches claiming to follow elder-led congregationalism really follow an independent elder-ruled type polity that deviates from congregationalism.
What would you do if someone called you a Pelagian for not believing in unconditional election and efficacious grace? You would probably respond by saying that you are not and that there are important distinctions between Pelagianism and Southern Baptist biblicism. How would you feel if that person then said that the devil is in the details?
If some miscreant called me a pelagian? Crawl into a corner and die? I do like to watch pelagic birds, though, so maybe I am an occasional pelagian. This kind of stuff is really off most people’s radar.
Like I said, this needs its own topic.
William,
?????
William, the current SBC president had a plurality of elders. Is this a problem? Should it be? I wonder why some SBC bloggers don’t write negatively about Wright’s church because they have elders.
I can’t help but think Wright has never been spoken of negatively because of elders because he’s not a Calvinist. See, when nominees for SBC president come out they usually get a good dose of blogger x-ray run through all areas of their church. Yet the issue of elders only seems to come up as a way to paint Calvinists in a negative light or as being non-baptist in this area.
How many times are we going to hear this before we start seeing some evidence? No Calvinist here seriously thinks that things like this never happen. There are without a doubt churches that have split over Calvinism.
What we get in a twist about, everytime this comes up, is the implication, either explicit or implicit, that Calvinistic theology is prone to produce this kind of result. That Calvinism is splitting more churches than other doctrinal issues. That Calvinism truly is something to be feared. That Calvinistic pastors are inherently divisive and deceptive. You all have your anecdotal stories, but that is not sufficient to your implications.
Non-Calvinists: What do you want from us? Seriously. Do you want us to promise not to lie to search committees? Do you want us to keep our theology hidden? What do you want?
Fair question Bill Mac. I would think that any search committee interviewing a calvinistic pastor candidate would have the expectation that he would not lie to the search committee, nor withold relevant facts about his theology and aims for the church. If he intends to implement a change in church governance, say so up front.
I ask again, why does a considerable segment of informed SBC life have some degree of reservation about Calvinists?
William, there is reservation because guys like you write articles titled “Why I’m Weary of Calvinists.” Or “Reformed Red Flags” or articles at sbctomorrow trying to “unveil” the “Calvinist takeover of the sbc,” or pastors like Johnny Hunt (since repented) who formerly spoke against Calvinism from the pulpit, etc. You act as if churches are against Calvinism because it has split churches in their associations all across the U.S. Churches are against Calvinism primarily due to the work of non-Calvinists “warning” them. How do I know?
Before I was a Calvinist, I had an altar call for prayer against the “heresy that was sweeping through the Southern Baptist Convention: Calvinism.” Wish I could get that day back… it was about 10 years ago. I also posted several words against Calvinism on BaptistFire back in the day. BTW: I’m still against hyper-Calvinism today; which is what I spoke against 10 years ago. I however only knew Hyper-Calvinism as the only form of Calvinism. In over 11 years of ministry, I’ve only met 1 hyper-Calvinist (he was baptist; but not sbc); and he only visited my church 1 time. He never returned again. He didn’t believe we should tell sinners to repent and believe because we’re trying to get them to do something they cannot do.
Anyways, the only way that your article has any merit is if you can prove that Calvinism leads to these things. It’s just not true. It’s like saying you’re weary of non-Calvinist pastors because you know 1, 2, or 5 that committed adultery. Does non-Calvinism lead to adultery? Not always; so, why stereotype an entire belief system based on the sins of a few that actually has nothing to do with their belief system?
You are not balanced William; for, you’re stereotyping Calvinists without stereotyping non-Calvinists.
We want you to be upfront with Pastor Search Committees and churches over something that could be so controversial as 5 pt. Calvinism can be. Thats the ethical thing to do.
And, personally, I’d like to see obsessed 5 pt. CALVINISTS not be so obsessed with it….but instead, just preach the Gospel and teach the Scriptures….with your bent in theology, of course. But, my goodness, why do so many of you have to try to convert everyone to an “ism?”
David
The only ism we all need to be converted to is Yankeesism.
First, I am not a Calvinist. I believe we can easily step into the dangerous territory of classifying all Calvinist pastors as a particular type of “deceptive” or “heavy handed” and “agenda” driven individual.
I believe the question we need to be asking is:
(1) Has Calvinist theology hijacked a group of pastors and is driving them to act this way?
or
(2) Has a group of pastors hijacked Calvinist theology and are using it to justify their own particular agenda?
Because of close friends I have that adhere to Calvinist beliefs, I tend to think the latter.
Randy
A considerable segment of informed SBC life has some degree of reservation about Calvinists?
I would say this:
A considerable segment of UNINFORMED SBC pastors have some degree of reservation about Calvinists. (Calvinism gets misrepresented by many non-Calvinists in the SBC)
AND:
A considerable segment of informed SBC pastors have degree of reservation about UNINFORMED SBC Calvinists. (Calvinism gets misrepresented by many poor Calvinists pastors as well- unfortunately not all Calvinists are as well developed in their beliefs as John Piper. If they were you most certainly could disagree with them but I don’t see how you could be afraid of them).
OK, I’ll go with you here, anon, and say that considerable segment of possibly misinformed SBC life has some degree of reservation about Calvinists. You still have to deal with it.
None of us gets to ignore the reality on the ground because we don’ t think it should be there.
By the way, I as a Calvinist, want to say that while I am still in doubt as to the intent of the post, it does belong here at Voices. Lest we be unfairly accused of being a monolithic Calvinist blog. 😉 Nah, no one would do that.
This is truly pathetic- you can’t make this up? Here’s what you can’t make up- a blogger who uses one anonymous ancedote to make a case for practically banning a theological and doctrinal distinctive from a denomination!
Yes, one lone-ranger Calvinist goes off half-cocked, so by implication EVERY Calvinist leaning pastor must be a ‘sheep stealing’ “false teacher” worthy of the stake! SBC Armenians: pull down the shades, hide the women and children, the Calvinists are coming, the Calvinists are coming!
Holy Hyperbole Batman! Bernie, you aren’t helping our case.
We don’t need to be over-stating the case. No one is trying to “ban Calvinism.” My point was all about perception….the fact is that churches in some communities are very sensitive about anything that smacks of Calvinism (even if they don’t understand it completely), and likewise , some are turned off by elder-led polity (which they may interpret as elder-rule). As a senior and veteran of many decades of service, I urge that we be careful about stumbling into mine-fields. The perception is one of elitism, i.e., chosen by God, as in Calvinism, or chosen to lead at a higher level, as in elder polity. Whether justified or not, people react to such phrases. Thus begins the problem.
It’s funny that elders often comes up as something held against Calvinists in some way. As I’ve documented (Southern Baptist Church Offices, Elders et al.) there is no official SBC position on elders and Bryant Wright, a non-Calvinist, serves in a church with elders. Also, based on the words on Wright’s church website it does not seem that the congregation only votes on “certain major decisions.”
If some Southern Baptists are going to fault churches for the offices they have claiming to be outside of the BFM what do we do with the following offices – Senior Pastor, Associate Pastor, Minister of Music, Minister of Education, Minister of Senior Adults, Director of Adult Singles, Director of Children, Director of Preschool, Director of Recreation, Pastor’s Secretary, Financial Secretary, Education Secretary, Music Secretary, Youth Secretary, Youth Assistant, Media Center Director, etc.?
Also, the most popular form of government is elder-led not elder-ruled.
I’m sure someone more historically astute than I will correct me, but single elder/pastor led churches seems more of an American Baptist tradition than an historical one. It is certainly not a Calvinist issue to have a plurality of elders/pastors. Anabaptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Anglican, Episcopalian, etc. are all led by a plurality of clergy in some fashion.
Side note: I often wonder why those SB’s against Calvinism who point to Anabaptists are SBC ancestors never make an argument for plural clergy based on Anabaptist roots.
Mark wrote: “Side note: I often wonder why those SB’s against Calvinism who point to Anabaptists are SBC ancestors never make an argument for plural clergy based on Anabaptist roots.”
I think you know why.
Name one, Mark, who point to Anabaptists as the SBC ancestors, who would be against a plurality of Elders/Pastors shepherding a Church? I dont know of any. Is this a strawman arguement on yours and Jasons part?
Now, I know of many such people, who are against Presbyterian style, church govt….ie, Elder ruled churches. Why? because they’re Baptist, who believe in the Priesthood of the Believer. But, many of these fellas that you erroneously mention, probably serve in churches that have more than one Elder/Pastor.
David
Not what he said.
David,
How about Emir Caner who put forth an Anabaptist Vision for Truett McConnell who spoke here in GA in 2009 on the topic of A Term of Derision, A Term of Identity: Our Anabaptist Ancestry in Georgia. Emir also endorsed and wrote in the appendix of the book Who Rules the Church? which advocates single pastor churches?
Or how about Ergun Caner who once wrote about Tom Ascol’s blog that it was “where the semi-Presbyterians want to revise our Anabaptist, free church [sic] and dissenter heritage”? In his past exchanges with James White Ergun supportingly mentioned that “Drs. Patterson, Kelley, and Roberts are leading the rest of us in purging our schools of…the Baptist use of elders as an oligarchy..”
Paige Patterson who defended “Single-Elder Congregationalism” in the book Who Runs the Church?: 4 Views on Church Government . He also strongly advocates the position that Baptists in America have an “Anabaptist kinship” and has even celebrated Radical Reformation Day at SWBTS.
I’m confused, David. Are you against elders because it is unbiblical or because you perceive it as being too much like Presbyterians? It appears to be the latter, which is rather silly. It also displays ignorance of the mutliple resources on elder leadership from congregationalists.
I also find some dissonance between the arguments against elders inside church systems that promote multiple pastors. It seems that people are ok with multiple “elders” and long as you don’t call them that and as long as they don’t act like the Bible tells them to act (we want them to be CEOs). I think you have a harder case to argue scripturally for single elder over plural, so the CEO/single elder model is a stretch.
There is even more dissonance when people argue against plural elders, but exist within deacon-led models or in top-down pastor-ruled models. I wonder how many people within congregationalism are inconsistent on this issue.
Can someone explain – in about 3 sentences, the claim that Baptists in the U.S. historically descended from Anabaptists?
I thought it was pretty clear that Baptists were separatists in England, that they came to the U.S. and that we descended from there. Swedish Baptists and other northern groups may have a different heritage.
Are Anabaptists our forefathers in spirit, so to speak, or is the claim that if Southern Baptist churches followed their roots, it would lead to the European Continent (e.g. the Netherlands, I suppose), rather than England and the London confession.
Thanks.
Of course, we could always have husbands and wives as co-pastors, but that’s another discussion , and another model. (grin)
It seems reasonable to concede that elders in the NT were in the plurality. I don’t take issue with a church that wants to have 1, but to argue against more than 1 on a scriptural basis makes no sense.
It also makes no sense to take other staff people at the church and call them elders to keep eldership in the hired, professional clergy. One can do that, but I have often seen that persons other than the pastor rarely have the experience and “elder” qualifications for the post. There may be exceptions. but most staff people are more junior, are more in the job of being an employee at the church’s request, and less like a bishop or overseer.
The biggest issue that I have is with the concept of bishop or overseer. That term seems to imply authority.
I have no problem with the belief that the elders should not have any ruling authority and that would be vested in the congregation. I totally get that. On the other hand, I don’t see the NT prohibiting that either.
We started the church that we attend in 1992. We have elders, one of which is the pastor. The others are active laymen. The congregation selects the elders, and after that, the elders make most of the decisions and recommendations to the congregation. The congregation always votes whether to confirm or not to confirm all major decisions.
The people who have objections to this arrangement are usually those who have some agenda or ax to grind. They want to get in a town hall type meeting and bring up all the topics that are of interest to them for discussion by the congregation and then a majority vote. That does not happen because our bylaws require that the elders bring such matters to the congregation with a unanimous recommendation. Members are always free to meet with the elders to ask questions or make suggestions about various things.
We have very de-politicized church due to our structure. it is very helpful to the operation and peace of the church.
Here’s the deal–as long as the Holy Spirit endwells believers and gives them spritual gifts, there will always be a pluarlity of elders in churches no matter what they’re called or if they’re given any sort of title. There are always going to be men supernaturally gifted to and with a heart for shepherding God’s sheep. They may be called deacons, Sunday School teachers, ministers of music, whatev–they’re still “eldering”
That’s true…so shouldn’t we do the biblically responsible thing and call them what God calls them?
If I were Dave, posting as me, and feeling extremely cynical, I would say that many in the SBC are fearful of plural eldership because the single-pastor model that has held sway for the last several decades is hard to give up. Plural elder-rule may be a tiny minority but I’m guessing there are a great, great many churches that are pastor-ruled, despite being congregational on paper. We know that mega-churches are essentially pastor-ruled. And let’s face it, associate pastors and assistant pastors are not elders in the same sense of the senior pastor. It is not a peer relationship.
That’s what I would say if I was feeling cynical.
And I was Dave.
Posting as me.
“Plural elder-rule may be a tiny minority but I’m guessing there are a great, great many churches that are pastor-ruled, despite being congregational on paper. We know that mega-churches are essentially pastor-ruled. And let’s face it, associate pastors and assistant pastors are not elders in the same sense of the senior pastor. It is not a peer relationship.”
Dead on.
This is one of those “we hate it, wait, what is it?” type of situations. People arguing against elders really have an uphill battle scripturally as well as in describing the current state of supposed congregationalism. I am a congregationalist, don’t get me wrong. But that can play itself out in many ways, most of which are unbiblical and unhealthy.
I keep seeing comments about non-Calvinists splitting churches too… But this is an apple and oranges thing. What I want to know is what is it about the pastor being a non-Calvinist that caused their churches to split? No one has offered up a single specific example like the OP has on specific Calvinistic issues that have split a church. Everything that has been brought up about non-Calvinists church splits has nothing to do with the pastor being a non-Calvinist. They are other issues that are unrelated to the pastor being a non-Calvinist. There very well be such that has happened in the SBC, but none that have been brought up here.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron, isn’t that EXACTLY the point the Calvinists in this thread have been making, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over….
Hopefully someone puts down whatever flavor of kool-aid they’ve been drinking and gets my point. 😉
Exactly.
Stephen,
I would say no, it is not quite the same. The OP is relating a specific actual event. Though I agree he is vague in the details, I also agree with Dave Miller in comment #7 and I have no reason to doubt the OP is correct in his facts regarding the situation that he is aware of and posted about here. All I asked is for all those claiming non-Calvinist’s pastors splitting churches to show where their non-Calvinism was the reason. No one has done so.
It seems to me, that some Calvinists will not believe that their system as well as it’s associated ecclesiology is not controversial within local SBC churches that have historically been free church and not reformed. That is why I believe William in the OP finished with this: “Question: A considerable segment of informed SBC life has some degree of reservation about Calvinists? Why?”
The attitude that I perceive here is that it has to be anything but Calvinism. I will admit that in this particular case, from what little detail was posted about it, the problem does not appear to have been the soteriology of Calvinism but rather it’s ecclesiology the pastor was trying to implement.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron,
I think most people recognize that church splits are rarely over one issue. They are also rarely the fault of the pastor alone. I think we need to avoid oversimplification.
Of course in some situations a calvinist pastor pushes calvinism and splits a church. No one is denying that it happens.
What is being denied is that it is (a) inherent to the theology, or (b) prevalent in the SBC.
Tons of churches are split in the SBC over a TON of issues. Can calvinism be one of those issues? Sure, I suppose. It would probably be more of a contributing factor, than a sole factor, IMO.
I think the vast majority of church splits are about power, not theology. Thus I think it is probably polity issues that do people in, not theology.
The above example seems to be about polity, or power, or power played out in polity. Or it is about a pastor who is a bad leader. The example cited above is not a good one, IMO. So, I have still yet to see an example of a church split solely because of calvinism.
As to your charge of people not being able to provide a case of someone’s non-calvinism alone being the issue of a split….exactly. That’s the point. It is never that simple. The same is true of calvinists/calvinism. Non-calvinists split churches for all kinds of reasons…but it is not fair to blame their non-calvinism. Exactly. We are simply arguing that point consistently.
Ron,
There are three issues to deal with here.
#1: the OP stated a situation where a church with a calvinistic pastor split. What has been stated repeatedly, but ignored, is that just because a calvinist is the pastor does not mean that calvinism is what split the church. In fact, since the church split, and then he then split again from the split, it appears the problems are much deeper than the pastor’s calvinism. Doesn’t it? So, though it no doubt played a role, I don’t think you can lay the charge at the feet of calvinism or calvinists.
#2: of course calvinists have been involved in church splits. In some cases, I have no doubt that a pastor pushed his views to the point of splitting or damaging a church. But it does not follow that calvinism causes splits.
#3: That leads us to this third issue, the one in your question. There are many factors involved in a church split. Usually sinfulness and hard-heartedness on behalf of the pastor or leadership or people. That plays itself out in a multitude of ways. I know of churches that split over “purpose-driven” models. I know churches that split over bad preaching. I know churches that split over fundamentalism. In fact I am in a church that split over all 3 of those issues (plus charismatic issues). None, with regard to calvinism. None of those pastors were calvinists.
The point? Just because a pastor holds to a particular view of calvinism (either way) does not say anything about why the church split.
The OP was not specific, come on. It was generic and biased. The OP said the church split over calvinism, but all the leadership and much of the church went with the pastor…so who was wrong in the split? The majority? Not in congregationalism. If the split was over leadership, then it wasn’t over calvinism, but over polity. Even then it may not REALLY be about polity but about certain people losing power or jealous of the power of others or who are holding tightly to an unbiblical form of government (depending on what polity they had before). If the deacons ran the church or committees ran the church or a powerful family ran the church, is the pastor wrong for correcting those unbiblical situations? No. Then why would he be blamed for splitting the church in such a situation.
Even then, it seems like the pastor has some sin issues that cause him problems, thus his then splitting from the other elders and calvinists. Certainly, calvinism wasn’t the issue in that second split. If the first split was about calvinism, then the second definitely was not.
Do churches split over issues other than calvinism? The answer to this should be pretty clear, right? They do. It is not as simple as the OP likes to present it.
Jason,
#1 – In this case, by all appearances it was a Calvinist pastor seeking to implement a Calvinist (or reformed) ecclesiology upon a non-Calvinist church (first church).
#2 – I would partly disagree. If it is Calvinism that is being pushed upon a church and the church splits because of it, then yes, Calvinism is a cause of the split. Maybe not the sole cause, but definitely a cause.
#3 – Agree with many things you say here.
Agree that it was vague. Biased? How? If the event is truthful as told, and even Dave in comment # 7 appears to acknowledge it was a real event, then the bias claim is not easily supported.
I also agree that there are a whole lot more of church splits for other reasons not related to Calvinism. But this particular case it appears to have been so.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron,
Re: #1 – If that is true, and I agree that it is, then it isn’t the calvinism that split the church – it was polity. Calvinists are not all on the same page with regard to polity, but I agree that in this case it appears his polity flows from his theology.
We need more info to see how the church responded to his teaching of calvinism to really judge the scenario. If the church didn’t split when he first taught it, then I would guess it wasn’t the major issue at play. Here’s my question: if the majority of the church agreed with him in calvinism, was he then ok? If the majority was calvinist, was the church now a calvinist church? Is this the result of a congregational view of “majority”?
BUT…the fact that polity is the issue for the split may give us insight that the REAL problems in the church were a fight over who was in charge, who had power, who calls the shots, etc. We don’t have the info available to assess this fully.
That is why I said it was vague. I think you agree.
I said it was biased because William drew the conclusion that it was calvinism at fault while ignoring all the issues I just listed. I think you can rightly say it was a factor, but maybe not even the key factor. Hard to say. That was what I meant by “bias”.
Thanks for your interaction. I appreciate it.
I agree with Ron…of course, churches are split over a wide variety of issues…of course. BUT, one issue that has caused strife in churches, and has led to church splits, is the 5 pt. CALVINIST pastor coming in to try to convert the church.
Do you get it?
David
David,
I have said repeatedly that it is one reason a church can split. I have never denied that. In fact, I said in the post above that it was certainly a factor in the example from William.
Seriously….read THEN respond.
You cannot seem to grasp the point that many of us are trying to make. It isn’t as simple as you want it to be. Many factors go into a church split. MANY. Rarely is theology the cause of a church split…it is usually personalities and power.
But, your bias will not allow you to think through the issue objectively.
William, the argument never ends because when the well is poisoned against Calvinists, as with this post, the conversation has already started off wrong. Whatever is then stated by Calvinists must overcome the poison just to get back to level ground.
In Baptist life it doesn’t hurt to let someone tell their story. In a church it doesn’t hurt to listen to the various threads that make up a church’s corporate narrative. One may learn something.
What I get from some of the contributors here is that people may not be entitled to their narrative because it doesn’t fit what they think it should be or because they dispute it; hence, the argument that the narrative doesn’t derive from the experiences but causes them i.e. calvinists don’t cause church problems, churches and calvinist critics cause the problems. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I appreciate the discussion, folks, but from where I sit the narrative Calvinists as victims doesn’t play well.
I still like some things about calvinists:
http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-i-like-about-calvinists.html
I didn’t get that at all from this comment stream. I saw well reasoned arguments that you have simply written off with this comment.
My point, that you have yet to address, is that it isn’t as simple as you want it to be. You want to blame one issue…but it is clear even from the example you cited, that it isn’t one issue to blame.
But if you go into it trying to prove a point (calvinists split churches), you miss the big picture altogether.
Jason,
We are saying that you’re missing the big picture, altogether. The 5 pt. blinders on your eyes are affecting the way you WANT to see this issue.
David
David,
Who says I am a 5-pointer?
I don’t think I am the one that is blind on this issue. I am saying that there is a bigger picture to this whole thing…church splits are rarely as simple as one issue. That is my point. You fail to see that big picture. You have narrowed everything to one issue. It simply isn’t that simple in most instances.
This example seems to be more about polity than calvinism.
I do have to laugh, though, considering the fact that you turn every discussion into a chance to attack calvinism – the fact that you would claim anyone has blinders is pretty funny.
Deal with my points. I have posted them several times.
Jason,
This discussion was on Calvinism long before I entered the fray. I just jumped in. But, the point is Jason…of course, other things cause church splits. I knew of a lot of churches…waaaay back in the 70’s….that split because a Pastor, or a group in the church, tried to convert everyone to charismatic, tongue speaking and such. So, that was an issue that caused a lot of strife and division in churches back in that day.
Now, of course, I’ve seen people cause strife over a host of issues….some of them as silly as can be…BUT, that does not change the fact that there are 5 pt. CALVINISTS going into churches and causing major strife and division…..
There’s a church which I used to be a member of. Its not far from me now. A 5 pt. CALVINIST came into the church, unbeknownst to that church, that that fella was of that persuasion….he began to teach it from the pulpit. Many of my friends in that church became very upset…over him teaching 5 pt. Calvinism. More than a few of them left that church, and joined another church in that town. Finally, that 5 pt. Pastor was asked to leave….due to his obsessed view.
After he left, for Lousiana, I believe…a handful of people, who had been converted to 5 pointism, left the church and started their own church.
Strife, turmoil, and division all started due to the CALVINISM of that Pastor….there was no other issue, Brother. That was it.
DAvid
David,
I agree that there are calvinists who go in and do damage to churches over the issue. I have never denied that. I don’t think anyone here denies that it happens.
I am denying that it is (a) inherent to that theology and (b) prevalent in the SBC.
I am also pointing you to the fact that usually church splits are not over doctrine but over power and personalities. Sure calvinism may be one of the issues that exposes it, but I don’t think it is often the ONLY issue. though, I am sure that it happens occasionally.
Jason:
The way it works with 007 is you have to always be the one that is wrong. Wink Wink. I have rarely if ever seen 007 post that he was wrong about something. According to him he is impartial. Uh huh.
William:
Great (but sad) story.
We had a church here in town that was started by a group who left a church, not over Calvinism. But they started and called a pastor.
The new pastor was reformed and told the congregation when they hired him. Over the years, the pastor taught the congregation about elders and they agreed to have them.
A few years later, the pastor was not acting right (no sexual sin, but just not a good leader, difficult etc.), so the elders dismissed him.
The pastor was a great speaker, and was threatening to come to church, get up and speak and try to start a “movement” to keep him.
But the elders were the leaders, and the pastor was gone.
Having elders saved that church a lot of heartache.
The pastor took some people and started a new church – The Gathering.
I bet they don’t have elders.
My experience is that many Baptist churches have sincere lay leadership that love and have sacrificed for the church.
They want to have a dynamic growing church and will call someone whom they think will bring that.
I have found that too many pulpit committees and such are not sophisticated enough to really understand reformed theology and all of its implications.
A few well-placed questions to people applying would easily reveal their beliefs about church, governance etc.
I have a hard time believing that most people would openly lie about their theological convictions. Most people are proud of them.
But too many Baptist churches go by personality and superficial judgments, or they may focus on questions that apply generally to many types of evangelical churches and overlook other types of churches.
If an applicant lied about his convictions, and it came out after he was hired, it would be easy to bat that down immediately.
Also, EVERY church should have a written questionnaire of all pastoral applicants.
The questions should ask about general theology, nature of God, the Bible, church government, etc.
Force the applicant to put IN WRITING what they believe.
Then they can’t deviate later.
It’s really not that hard. It just takes effort and being careful.
Hiring should not be a personality, glad handing session.
One thing that has not been mentioned about this post that innitially struck me is the question of credibility. Who is the source for this information? Did it come from someone in the church who was opposed to the elders? Did it come from someone among the elders? Did it come from the fellow who was voted out by the elders? Did it come from a family member of someone involved? If it came from someone opposed to the elders, wouldn’t a person want to interview someone from the other perspective in order to arrive at some measure of objectivity? Even after that, wouldn’t even more investigation be required in order for a person to know the reason for the split? If my enemy says something about me from a slanted viewpoint to someone and that someone spreads it about without coming to me or getting what facts can be gathered, I call that spreading rumors.
To the formeratheist, greetings from another formeratheist. If we can keep this up, we might get rid of those new atheists by getting them all converted. To volfan, I first heard Sovereign Grce preached in the Nimmons Baptist Church in Northeast Ar.by Rev. George Washington Gray (He was from Mo. at the upper end of the bootheel, near Campbell, MO.) back in the ’40s and early 50s. Years later, when I read William Warren Sweet (a Methodist historian at the Univ. of Chicago);s Story of Religion in American and his description of the Farmer Preacher of the Baptists as the like number of the Circuit Riders of the Methodists, I thought I was reading a description of the pastor of the church I attended as a child. Brother Gray baptized percentage wise the same as Dr. R.G. Lee at Bellevue in Memphis (he would take me there to see that church, when I preached a revival in Nimmons in the mid-sixties). Bro. Gray has a kind and winsome disposition, was well-respected. Since I happen to know that Sovereign Grace minsiters were the founders of the SBC and the launchers of the Great Century of Missions, I don’t see as how they owe anyone any such explanation. But I do believe they need mentoring and examples on how to advance the cause of Christ…just like any followers of Arminianism.
We are all subject to goofs, to follies in conduct and behavior, to misunderstandings…and etc. One of the things I tried to do was learn how it is to be done. One way was simply to do the research….years of research. Imagine my surprise to find one of my ancestors, a Middleton, who might have been the officer of the court to execute the will of Daniel Marshall. Their theological view was Sovereign Grace…all the way. And they were the people to come up with the idea of allowing people to preach who believed Christ tasted death for every man. Just look at the terms of union between the Separates and Regulars in Virginia in 1787.
Now some of those more Arminian types want to toss out the folks who follow in the paths of their predecessors and, in some cases, their very own ancestors. This is not to say I approve of those who act like bulls in a china shop. I don’t. The courtesy and care of Basil Manly, Sr., James Petigru Boyce, John A. Broadus, and others who maintained Sovereign Grace is a legacy that needs to be known and followed.
So you folks who give the Sovereign Grace folks a hard time need to remember from when this denomination came, and you Sovereign Grace believers and preachers need to remember how it was handled by our predecessors and, in some cases, ancestors.
Consider the following remarks from the father of missions among all Southern Baptists, even from the Rev. Luther Rice:
…The doctrine of divine decrees has often,…, suffered
injury. By its enemies, it has been caricatured….By some
of its avowed friends, also, it has been much abused;….
“How absurd it is, therefore, to contend against the doc-
trine of election, or decrees, or divine sovereignty. Let us
not, however, become bitter against those who view this
matter in a different light, nor treat them in a superilious
manner; rther let us be gentle towards all men. For who
has made us to fiffer from what we once were? Who has
removed the scales from our eyes? or who has disposed
us to embrace the truth?”
Rice wanted to see the truth maintained, because it had been taught by the great Teacher. He also declared to one who did not want such truths preached from the pulpit: “Does the brother mean to imply that ‘purposes and decrees’ are not found in the Bible, and do not, therefore, constitute any part of ‘the gospel?'”
He also asked: “Ought not every preacher of the gospel be able to say with Pau: ‘For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God,’ and if so, must he not ‘preach purposes?'”
Rev. Rice was quite explicit about the ministers preching predestination and the decrees of God as well as pressing the obligation of ‘all men every where to repent,’ and ‘believe the gospel;’….
You all might want to know that the person who chaired the committee of Sandy Creek Assn. which drew up the Confession of Faith of 1816 was Rev. Luther Rice. You might also want to know that one of the members of that committee was the Associational Clerk, Basil Manly, Sr., who would firs suggest the founding of Southern Seminary circa 1856-36 and in 1857,58,59 would chair the Educational Conventions of Southern Baptists which founded the seminary. You all might also want to note the close relationship of the Abstract of Principles to that Confession and that Basil Manly, Sr., served as pastor of the FBC of Charleston from 1825-1836, baptizing the mother of James Petigru Boyce and laying his hand on Boyce’s head (a lad of about 8, I think) and saying Boyce would be a minister of the Gospel. By the way, FBC Charleston had Separate Baptist ministers from 1785-1836. Sandy Creek and Charleston at that period were firm in their commitment to Sovereign Grace, allowing for some difference that had been adopted by Separates and Regulars in Virginia. But even the folks of Sandy Creek Assn. at that time were very like particular redemptionists for the most part. Even so they allowed for the preaching tht Christ tasted death for every man due to the text in Hebs.2:9. Look at our past gentlemen. Look at our past. The folks who follow it allow for the differences, but it grew out of those five pointer types who had a liberal spirit and were willing to give a person the freedom to work it out for himself…even as my ordaining pastor did with me.
The source of the information for Luther Rice is James B. Taylor: Memoir of Rev. Luther Rice. Baltimore, Md.: Armstrong and Berry, 1840. Pp.330,331,332-333. 336, 337, 338. A slip of paper pasted inside the the 3rd page reads in that ink appropriate to the time mentioned: Private John A, McMurry, Co. A. 3rd Georgia Battalion Sharpshooters, Woffords Brigade, Kershaws Division Longstreets Corps, Army of Northern Virginia.
How do these evil Calvinist pastors so stealthily sneak by the pastor search committee, deacons, or whoever else interviews them (and, of course, votes on them)? Could it be that a good number of members in SBC churches don’t know much about theology and so don’t even know what to ask a prospective pastor regarding his theology?
And I wonder why it is that we never hear these horror stories about non-Calvinist pastors who are able to sneak into Calvinist churches with the agenda of changing them?
How do you know anything about a prospective pastor unless you ask? Seems to me that it’s incumbent upon the interviewers to ask pertinent questions (other than: “how little can we pay you?”) about theology, whether he’s been divorced, served time in prison, or if he thinks it’s ok to have the Easter bunny visit the Resurrection Day worship service.
I get pretty tired of hearing how these poor churches are getting the wool pulled over their eyes. I find it hard to believe that Calvinist pastors are lying to get hired by churches. I’m sure someone, somewhere has done it, but I can’t believe that’s anything but an extremely rare occurence.
In the cases I am familiar with the committees have been naive and uninformed. In some cases the pastor got deep into calvinism after coming to the church. Let’s face it, most search committees are not prepared in a lot of ways but one way they seem to be prepared is to address the problems their last pastor exhibited.
Even Tom Ascol counseled prospective calvinist pastors to be forthright about their beliefs. I don’t think the problem is lying but perhaps witholding relevant information (“…well, you didn’t ask me about that…”).
Rick,
Anything that you might think would be controversial should be discussed right off the bat. Whether its CAlvinism, “wont marry anyone but Believers,” “have a private prayer language,” “been divorced,” etc., etc., etc.
To not talk about things with a Pastor Search Committee that could be very controversial later on….is…well, unethical in my opinion. And, yes, you’re right…most Search Committees dont know enough theology and current issues in the SBC to ask the right questions. But still, the potential Pastor does know, and he should address issues that could be potentially divisive.
David
I understand what you’re saying, but how do you “talk about things with a Pastor Search Committee” that they don’t know anything about?
If you explain what you believe about salvation without using “calvinist” and the committee doesn’t understand that you’re a calvinist and calls you to the church, is that unethical?
As long as the Church votes on things…as a congregation…like the budget, who the Pastor/Pastors are, whether to build a new building, or not….etc; then, I would consider them congregational, and thus be Baptist in their church polity.
But, if a board of Elders decides everything…the budget, who’s an Elder/Pastor, what color carpet to put in the sanctuary, etc. …then, that would be Presbyterian style govt.
For example, a Presbyterian church not too far from me fired the Pastor and the Student Pastor one Thursday night at thier meeting. No one in the Church got a voice, nor a vote on this matter. The Elder Board just decided it all on their own, and did it. That’s Presbyterian style govt. And, that’s not Baptist, nor NT, in my opinion….Baptists believe in the Priesthood of every Believer….
David
007:
Are you saying as long as 90% of the decisions are made by the Elders and the other 10% the congregation votes on you would consider this Baptist Polity?
David,
I think that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptist Calvinists holding to a plurality of elders would agree with you on this.
I was in a traditional SBC Church at one time that fired a pastor and a youth minister without a single vote as well. The personnel committee made the decisions by saying “if you don’t leave now, you will get no severance, but if you ‘resign’ we will do this”. They went on to provide a severance without any input from the Church. I found out when I went to seminary later on that this sort of thing was not so out of the ordinary in many SBC Churches.
I say that to point out that a Church doesn’t need elders in order to act non-congregationally. I’ve never seen such blatant disregard for congregationalism as mentioned above in any of Churches I’ve been in which actually had elders.
And David, as for voting on the color of the carpet – I hope that was a joke. Fights of stupid things like that are exactly why Elders make so much sense practically (not to mention Biblically).
DR,
I was not talking about one bad thing that one church did. I was talking about different kinds of Church govt. I was pointing out the differences in church polity style.
Also, having Elders does not make a church immune from problems. As I pointed out, the ELDERS of the Presbyterian church fired the Pastor and the Student Pastor for no good reason, except they didnt like them. The whole church erupted in strife….with the final result being that a whole lot of people left that church. So, having an Elder Board does not solve some of the problems that some of you apparently think it will.
Anyway, an Elder Board deciding everything is a Presbyterian style of church govt. A Pastor/Elder led, congregational Church is a Baptist style of Church polity, which is Biblical.
David
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I am curious what passages you go to demonstrate your understanding of congregationalism.
I am also curious about your understanding of “priesthood of the believers”.
David,
David, you essentially made my point in your comments, which is that an Elder system doesn’t mean that a Church is not congregational and a non-elder system doesn’t mean that a Church is congregational.
Thus dividing this discussion along the lines of elders v. non-elders is not helpful. Each Church must decide how much congregationalism they desire to have. Some Elder system Churches are very congregational – others are very non-congregational. Therefore, you must look at individual Churches and not speak of elder systems in general.
So that’s what’s meant by “priesthood of the believer” — that they get to vote on everything? Hmmm. . . .
There can really be no doubt about the fact that the government of a New Testament Church is congregational in nature. This is plainly evident from the usage of the ekklesia, the governing body of a Greek City State, exemplified in the case of Ephesus in Acts. 19. Every member of an ekklesia has the right to vote, to be a part of the process of that individual church. Elders as Peter stated lead by example. Howeve, in reality, there are churches where deacons, personnel committees, and even powerful families usurp the power of the congregation to make decisions. One reason for the readiness of the new calvinists to adopt the Presbyterian system is that they have likely run into the deacon govenment or the personnel government or some clique government that ignores the biblical mandate. What they fail to realize is that the presbyterian form of government by elders is subject to corruption, too. Just like the hierarchy of Catholic types of churches, evil gets entrenched and it takes traumatic actions to get rid of it. The biblical pattern, regardless of failures, however, is clear: It is congregational. Elders cannot govern at their pleasure, and the congregational cannot delegate its responsibility as the Sovereignty of God had identified the church as responsible. A cloer examination of ekklesia in Congregational and Baptist Polity will reveal that the Congregationalists had the better part of the argument…and the Baptists were even better than the Congregationalists which explains why to my thinking over 200 Congregational Churches became Baptist during the period of the Great Awakenings according to C.C. Goen in his work on the Great Awakening.
Besides some Acts 29 churches, where are the young Calvinists in the SBC who are embracing the Presbyterian system. There may be a few, but, by and large, they are nowhere to be found, because they only exist as caricatures in blogs like the present one. Young SBCers who are embracing the idea of a plurality of elders as it is being taught by pastors like Mark Dever and by seminary professors are not holding to a Presbyterian-style polity, but a polity well within the bounds of congregationalism.
Chris,
Who is decrying the plurality of Elders/Pastors? As SB’s, we believe that a church has Pastors and Deacons……many, many, many churches have many Pastors/Elders. So, who is against that? I dont know of any.
But, there are some people, out there, who seem to be embracing a Presbyterian style of Church govt. There are many people in SB life, who are crying out against that.
David
My question is where are these people supposedly embracing a Presbyterian style polity in the SBC, outside of those dually affiliated with Acts 29? My argument is that they DO NOT exist. Many people are crying out against people who they assume hold to a Presbyterian style polity, when, in fact, they hold to a plurality of elders that falls within the bounds of congregationalism and the BF&M.
Okay, maybe some people are misunderstanding the talk of plurality of Elders/Pastors…okay. But, there are still some Acts 29 fellas, who are embracing it…right?
Well, then that’s what many in the SBC are talking about….lets stay away from that….because, there are many leaders in SBC life, who seem to be embracing the Acts 29 network.
David
David, Chris wants you to name these so-called leaders or Churches. So far only you have offered generalities – boogiemen that are supposed to exist, but no one has ever named them. So name some.
Heck, name some Acts 29 Churches that are Southern Baptist that practice this so-called “non-congregationalism”.
Really, until you can do that, we are only talking about a ghost – something we’ve heard about, but so far, no one’s ever seen.
For any who believe that SBC churches are adopting true elder-rule:
Name five. Please.
If you think that “many people” in the SBC are encouraging elder-rule in the SBC:
Name five. Please.
It’s time to leave anecdotes behind. If this is really happening, let’s have some names.
Bill Mac,
Who said that there are “many people in the SBC” who are encouraging Elder ruled, Presbyterian churches?
David
There are “some” in SBC life, who are encouraging Elder/Pastor ruled, Presbyterian style, Church govt. Are there not? Some Acts 29 fellas, for example? And, we have some SBC leaders, who seem to be going along with the Acts 29 guys..correct? Speaking at SBC events…at Seminary events….entity heads whose churches supported Acts 29 type churches….etc, etc, etc.
Right?
DAvid
David: I don’t know. That’s why I asked for names. Names of people who have specifically called for churches to adopt elder-rule.
Why don’t you actually prove your point instead of asking for clarification?
If there were these “some” then you should be able to name them. That’s all anyone is asking. Why can’t you seem to do that?
I most certainly will not name the ones I know. One of them is a friend of mine, in a church that I know well. Others have been some that I’ve heard about. You even have Chris mentioning some of the Acts 29 fellas in a comment above…that some of them are doing this.
Sooooooooooo
David
David,
I wouldn’t want to name names either if I were you. That would force you to actually have to quit claiming these people exist in large numbers and put your money where your mouth is. So far you’ve only raised a boogieman and claimed he exists. Sorry man, but I don’t believe in monsters in the closet.
Oh, and I love the “others have been some that I’ve heard about” comment. Hmmm…so gossip and hearsay serve now as definitive truth? Wow.
David said:
“Well, then that’s what many in the SBC are talking about….lets stay away from that….because, there are many leaders in SBC life, who seem to be embracing the Acts 29 network.”
That is not what or who William is talking about, which is why I am making this point. William denies the distinction between elder-led and elder-rule (see above) and is wrongly accusing SBC Calvinists of something that is not true of them.
If people in the SBC are going to cry foul against the shift away from Baptist polity among some Acts 29 guys (who are, by and large, not going into existing churches, but planting churches), then will they also do the same against those who have multi-cite churches, churches with multiple services, deacon-ruled chuches, and committee-ruled churches?
Chris:
Sadly, there is just little to no consistency with some folks. They have a pet issue and will only focus on it–such as Calvinism or non Calvinism for some.
I hear little to not complaints about those who have multi-cite churches, churches with multiple services, deacon-ruled chuches, and committee-ruled churches?
Chris, I don’t know that I even addressed elder led/elder ruled, much less denied it. The case I cited was a case of elder ruled…until the pastor reconverted to congregational rule.
There has been a lot of indistinct terminology tossed about here which is why I say that the devil is in the details.
One of you sages should make this its own topic.
On your pelagian comment above, I am a birder (further isolating me amongst my SBC pastor brethren, I suppose) and pelagic is a term applied to a category of birds. I appreciate the opening to use the term. Pelagius OTOH, I think was a guy I left for dead in a seminary hallway about 30 years ago. 😉
William,
You were making imprecise statements. I asked you if you recognized the distinction between elder-rule and elder-led, but you shrugged it off. Do you now recognize it? Do you now admit that elder-led ecclessiology falls within the bounds of the BF&M?
Please, let me shrug your question off. I occasionally get a whiff of condescension here and like to let the moment pass. I’ve already been given a baby greek lesson.
The discussion has been general and touching only indirectly on the question you are interested in. I don’t have a definite answer about the BFM and what you call ‘elder-led’. Depends. How many times do I have to say that the one church in question here was elder ruled, they fired the pastor.
The debbil is still in the details. If you merely mean chaning the name from ‘deacons’ to ‘elders’, probably.
I say again, one of you bright lights come up with a piece on this for discussion. I bet Dave would use it. It’s tough to go 200+ deep in comments and maintain a dialogue.
You connected elder-rule with Calvinism in general earlier in this thread not just in the original post, asserting that Southern Baptist Calvinists held to an elder-rule ecclessiology outside the confines of the BF&M. I pointed out that most Southern Baptist Calvinists who do not hold to a one pastor model, hold that a church should be led by a plurality of elders, which is within the confines of the BF&M. You continued to use elder-rule language generally anyway. I asked you if you recognized the distinction and you ignored me. If you are going to write a blog and interact with those who comment, the burden should be on you to understand what they believe, especially when you connect them with something that is not true of them. I encourage you to read Part 3 of John Hammett’s book Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches. There you will find a defense of elder-led congregationalism within a Southern Baptist context.
Thanks for the advice, Chris.
“a whiff of condescension”
Perhaps it is coming from your own keyboard, William.
The way you “shrug off” (as you say) reasonable arguments and ignore important distinctions and nuances, is interesting. Perhaps that is what is making it hard to maintain a dialogue.
Just a thought…which I am sure will be dismissed.
So, in reading these comments, I thought of a few things:
1. Could most of this could be avoided if churches had specific plans to raise up pastors from within their own body instead of going to different states/congregations/denominations to hire pastors? Imagine how cool it would be if a pastor retired, and his “apprentice” stepped into his position the next day. He knows everybody, knows the ministry, knows the vision, but more importantly, he knows his flock.
2. In organizations that require seminary for pastors, churches should scholarship members.
3. Search committees need to ask harder questions. It is TOTALLY acceptable for a search committee to ask questions based on the ministry vision and goals of their church. If a search committee thinks the Calvinist/Arminian question is appropriate, they should be encouraged to ask it. If the pastoral staff is all Reformed (soteriologically), do you think an Arminian person would fit in well? I don’t. Ask the question early, save a lot of heartache later.
Jeff.
BTW, how are church committees congregational?
Mark, they’re congregational because that’s how the glory days of the sbc ministered, period. Get with the program.
Mark:
That’s a great question. I hear all the time from folks about congregationalism, and usually the story line involves committees. And there are usually big power plays to get on these committees because everyone knows that’s where the decisions are made.
congregationalism is not about committees. its about congregations deciding matters of the church….praying over things and voting on them.
You cant do that if an Elder Board is ruling the church. The Elders decide everything. The average, Church member is obviously not spiritual enough, or is too stupid, to participate in such important things.
But anyway, as long as a church votes…has Deacons and Elders/Pastors….then, its Church polity is Southern Baptist, in regards to these matters.
David
David, great! So if we have 10 pastors and 10 deacons and the congregation votes XYZ; and your church has 1 pastor and 10 deacons and the congregation votes on XYZ they are both equally congregational.
they would be congregational….yes….what does it matter if you have 10 pastors or 1….or whether you have 1 pastor and 10 deacons???
if the congregation has the opportunity to vote on church matters, then they are congregational.
David
David007, thank you! That’s what many of us have been saying all along.
I have a couple of questions for all of you about the role of elders/deacons in a congregationally governed church.
1. Should there be things that the congregation is not allowed to vote on? Where should that line be drawn? How do you make that decision?
2. If the elders are there to “guard the doctrinal gates” as it were, would you allow the congregation to get enough support to change the statement of faith to include something like annihilationism? If not, why not (priesthood of believers and all that)?
These questions come from my experience as an elder in a fairly large church. I always thought it was funny that the elders were voted in by the congregation to handle the spiritual aspects of the church but when those came up, the congregation always wanted to vote and sometimes overruled the elders whom they voted in to handle exactly those cases.
It seemed that we had a very “western and political” view of congregationalism. In fact, there were people who would use Robert’s Rules to stall out votes and make meetings a nightmare.
So, given the anecdotal nature of much of this thread, it has been my experience that a plurality of elders who make the majority of the decisions with a ton of input from the congregation works far better than the way congregationalism is done today.
I’m not saying congregationalism doesn’t work – I’m saying that in almost every congregational church I have been to, its sole purpose is to prevent leaders from “taking over”, and when the word “elder” is mentioned, there is an immediate accusation of pushing agendas and back room meetings to subvert the will of the people.
Methinks we’ll all be pretty mad when we get to heaven and have no say in how its run. 🙂
Hey Jeff,
I appreciate your comments and observations. I agree with you totally about what you said about our form of church polity being “western and political”. We have interjected into church government a type of Americanized democracy and nothing that can be backed up by the Bible. For instance, we cast votes instead of trying to establish consensus. Our form of congreagtionalism is by nature divisive and confrontational. That’s why I believe in some form of Elder led government because in most cases it eliminates that potential for problems on every insignificant decision.
You guys made me think…If the congregation makes all or most of the decisions why have a seminary educated pastor who meets the biblical qualifications?
Mark,
Exactly. In the business world they refer to this as micromanaging and it’s never good. The leadership should be allowed to lead.
I thought yall said yall didnt believe in Elder ruled churches?
And, Pastor/Elder led and congregational doesnt mean that the congregation votes on everything.
David
Jeff,
What kind of church was this? Southern Baptist?
David
No, EFCA.
The problem is that calling yourself congregational can mean any of a myriad of things.
The problem is when people are so close-minded that they think that the way many SBC churches have been run over the past 70 years or so is the ONLY way one can be congregational.
jason,
Yes, while there is a lot of leeway concerning what constitutes a congregational church, its still pretty clear what is and what isnt a congregational church. You either are allowing the members to vote, or decide, on issues; or you are not. You are either allowing the Believers of a church to pray and decide on issues of the church; or else, the Elders are telling everyone what’s what.
It seems pretty simple to me.
David
David,
No, it’ not that simple.
Does the congregation vote on EVERY issue at your church?
I would assume the answer is no. You probably are not having a church vote on the brand of toilet paper. You probably are not even having a church vote on what book of the Bible or what sermon series you will preach next. True?
So, you have decided that there are some issues which do not need to go before the congregation because they can trust the leadership (pastor/pastors/elders) to make wise decisions and follow their lead.
So, you are elder-led…to some degree. Everyone is, to some degree.
The question is: where do you draw the line on which issues go before the church and which do not?
Of course, we’re Elder/Pastor led. And, as I’ve stated before…many times in many places…that I would consider a Church congregational as long as they voted on a yearly budget, and they voted on who their Pastors/Elders were, and who wasnt. So, I’m basically holding to a very minimal view of who is congregational, and who aint.
Very large Churches are the way I described above…they vote on a yearly budget..they vote on who their Pastors are….and they would probably vote on building a new sanctuary, or something…but, that’s about it. I would still consider them congregational, because the congregation did get to vote on the yearly budget, and on who their Pastors would be.
But, a church where the Elders decide the yearly budget; who is to be an Elder, and who aint; and who decide on everything else….are Elder Ruled…which is a Presbyterian form of Church polity….its not Baptist.
David
Vol,
Based on what you just said above, that’s exactly what I believe. I don’t believe the church should vote every time they flush the toilet, but I do believe the leadership should be accountable to the body.
If that is the criteria…I seriously doubt there are many elder-ruled SBC churches.
Jeff,
You said “I’m not saying congregationalism doesn’t work” OK, I’ll say it… “Hyper-Congregationalism (being defined as any Church that does not have a Plurality of Elders as commanded in the N.T.) does NOT WORK!”
There is absolutely NO SUPPORT in the N.T. of the Congregation ever voting against the will of the Elders of the Church… ZERO SUPPORT… End of Discussion!
I’m not saying I agree with you, but I agree with you. 🙂
Soooo, Greg and Jeff, are yall saying that you believe in an Elder Ruled Church???
David
I can’t speak for Jeff… But for me, I am saying I believe in a “Biblical Church”.
Now I have been searching the Scriptures all day and for the life of me I can’t find “Business Meeting”, “Robert’s Rules”, or “Committee X,Y, or Z anywhere in the N.T. text .”
So the proper question David is not do we call our Churches “Elder Led”, or “Elder Ruled”… the proper question is “Are our Churches Structured and Governed according to the Word of God?”
That is the proper question…
I’m not sure if this is “elder ruled” or not, but here is my current church’s polity (but we are not SBC):
1. Plurality of elders
2. No senior pastor
3. All pastors are elders, not all elders are pastors (but all elders can preach, teach, etc)
4. The congregation votes only on the annual budget – 1 business meeting per year, no Robert’s Rules. 🙂
5. All leaders are raised up from our own body – including pastors (after a multi-year discipling process)
6. The leadership is divided into three parts – the founding families, deacons (operations), and elders (spiritual). We believe that the founding families should have a large part of the say in what goes on because they were the ones who were called to plant the church in the first place, and they had the original vision. The leaders will mutually submit to each other and be accountable to each other, though ultimately, each group has authority over their own sphere.
7. The congregation provides input to the leaders, but do not vote on anything but the budget.
So, we have a plurality of elders, and these elders are actually called to lead and exercise authority, and should expect the congregation to submit to this leadership. But, we are mutually accountable to one another and to the Scriptures that call us to not lord over our charges, and to view others more highly than ourselves.
If you want to call that “elder ruled” that’s fine, but actually, we are elder ruled with checks and balances of the founding families and the deacons, but that’s a mouthful. I just like to say “We are a plurality of elders, and our elders actually have authority and exercise it.”
Sorry – that was rather long winded. 🙂
Jeff.
This is interesting.
Volfan 007, you seem to be the most “congregational” so to speak, so I will ask you.
Let’s take a church that was founded. A doctrinal statement is adopted. Bylaws and the Charter are adopted. Elders are elected by the congregation to perform the duties that overseers have in the NT and to do what the congregation agrees the elders should do (including the above things).
The congregation votes on all major decisions – hiring pastoral staff, decisions to build buildings, establish new congregations, to add elders, to go into debt, to change the doctrinal statement.
But, the congregation votes on these things only after a unanimous recommendation from the elders. And then after the congregation votes (by secret ballot), the elders consider the votes AND any comments that people might want to make on their ballots, and casts a confirming vote. For example, if the congregtion approves the hiring of a new associate pastor by 51 to 49%, the elders might believe that is not sufficient support for that person such that his coming might be divisive.
The only exception on which the congregation does not vote is that the annual budget is decided by the elders. Staff salaries are based on survey info from various sources, debt is already set by the bank, utilities are not negotiable, the staff asks for a budget for their ministries. There is not always enough money to do everything, so everyone takes a bit of a haircut etc.
The budget is adoted and presented to the congregation at the next information meeting. All back up financial information, to the penny, is available to any member.
Any congregant can come and meet with the elders to ask questions, present concerns, to ask that the elders make a recommendation in a certain area, etc.
Some have come. One wanted to make changes to the doctrinal statement. The elders did not agree to make a unanimous recommendation to the congregation on that. So, the proposal died.
So – is this an acceptable form of congregationalism to you? Is it acceptable within the BFM? Why or why not.
Does this violate some scriptural passage etc.?
As far as I can see, this does deny individuals the right to stand up at a business meeting to propose anything that they want. If, for example, a person stood up and said, “I want to recommend that we change the doctrinal statement to allow for women pastors” or “I want to propose that we adopt a statement allowing for the moderate consumption of alcohol” or “I want to propose that we issue a resolution condemning George Bush for the Iraq War”, and then asks for a vote, and if 50% plus 1 approved it, then you have a change.
Does denying this town hall type of democracy, particularly over doctrinal matters, violate the NT? If so, how?
Or does a procedure such as the one above actually help keep peace in a congregtion so that business meetings are not controlled or held hostage by people who are willing to be the loudest or most interested in things like this?
I will say that I do not believe that the NT gives us road maps in cases like this, and I believe it is acceptable for churches to employ a variety of arrangements with which they are comfortable.
I believe that when we try to make the NT say things it doesn’t say, that we are not on solid ground.
But I am truly interested in your opinion on this. You may think that the NT would require more democracy than this church allows. I am truly interested in your opinion and the reason for your opinion.
Also, let me add to all that one aspect of the Presbyterian system that no one seems to have addressed, or be aware of, is the existence of the Presbytery. That is a board outside of the local church that still has ruling authority over the church. Even if a Baptist church has ruling elders, it is not a Presbyterian system because I know of no Baptist church that submits to a Presbytery outside of its own congregation.
Well, Four Square Gospel Baptists supposedly submit to an outside authority in more of an episcopal structure. Then again, they are a group that most Baptist scholars aren’t sure what to do with.
Also, do you think that distinction is almost or nearing a sort of distinction without a difference. So maybe a Baptist church with ruling elders isn’t Presbyterian because there is no outside religious authority (Presbytery). But wouldn’t a Baptist church with the Elder-Rule set-up be functionally Presbyterian in some sense?
This Elder-led vs. Elder-rule discussion is fascinating. It wasn’t too long ago that conservatives were emphasizing the authority of the pastor over and against the rest of the church. Interesting how these debates about authority evolve…
In my own Baptist backyard, we have had to deal a little with those who insist on the authority of “the Church” or tradition…
Louis, said the following:
“Or does a procedure such as the one above actually help keep peace in a congregtion so that business meetings are not controlled or held hostage by people who are willing to be the loudest or most interested in things like this?”
BDW, said the following:
“It wasn’t too long ago that conservatives were emphasizing the authority of the pastor over and against the rest of the church. Interesting how these debates about authority evolve… “
When one takes into account the traditional SBC model of a “Pastor Ruled Church”… it makes me wonder if some are not so vocal in their opposition to a plurality of Elders in the local church because they currently enjoy a position of absolute and unquestioned authority within their congregation, and they fear the accountability that a Plurality of Elders brings to the Sr. Pastor position???
As I understand the way you have described this, it is clearly an elder ruled church and not congregationalism in any ultimate form. The congregation may vote, they may opine and counsel, and they may propose, but it is the elders who dispose and who may deign to consider the congregation’s opinions or votes, or not.
Based off of what definition of congregationalism?
Any where the congregation is the ultimate authority.
Is there anything in this that causes you not to classify this as a case of elder rule?
William, Volfan (whosoever will), does the following describe Southern Baptist congregationalism?
God calls individuals, whose lives best exemplify the Biblical qualifications of the position of pastor, overseer/elder, ministerial staff and deacon, to lead the local body. They are selected and affirmed by the local body after prayerful consideration. Leaders are called by God to uphold church doctrine and to live lives worthy of respect. The local church is called to submit to their authority….we have an elder form of government that is also congregational on certain major decisions.
Louis speaks of his own church, the church in which he is a ruling elder. Louis I would recommend Phil Newton “Elders in Congregational Life” for a Biblical perspective on Church governance.
Thank, Ian.
William:
I appreciate your response very much. Volfan007 must have signed off.
The congregation selected the elders in the very beginning and the charter and provides for this.
Is that not “congregational”?
Also, I would enjoy your thoughts on the BFM. I think it says “Democratic Processes”. Are there not democratic processes in this example?
And finally, do you believe this is prohibited in scripture? What is the basis?
No, I don’t believe so, Louis. If a church democratically chooses the pastor, the pastor chooses the elders and the elders have all the power, is that congregational? Not much, I’d say.
It’s a little tedious to continue this here. How about going to Dave Millers ‘apathetic on elders’ article?
ok
BDW:
I would not call it Presbyterian without a Presbytery that gives it its name.
I would characterize it (if I were an opponent) as non-Baptistic because it gives to much power to a group of leaders and takes power away from the congregation.
It is interesting – the change.
I wonder if there is a common thread of seeing some overseeing role on the part of the spiritual leadership in a church but that the Reformed folks have re-introduced the concept of a pluarlity of elders, which often brings lay people into the picture. You are right, however, that a pluarlity does diminish the role of a senior, single pastor leader that used to be more prevalent.
That is interesting that you are dealing with a traditional type argument.
I tend to think these things are fluid, and that what is emphasized now can be a reaction to something that was overemphasized in years gone by.
Couldn’t resist.
Here is the BFM on the The Church:
“A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”
Anyone care to identify how the above example disagrees with the BFM?
Louis,
Who cares if it is “Congregational” or not???
The “Hyper-Congregational” that David and a few others are advocating for is not based upon the clear and reasoned teaching of the New Testament.
I was just asking so I could understand their thoughts.
I was not necessarily agreeing.
I hope that William and David will share more of their thoughts.
Thanks for the summary. It sheds light on the dynamics involved. Congregational polity represents the best approach, in my opinion.