(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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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”… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
“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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »