Church, practices and policies
For any Christian out there who is being obedient to Christ being involved in a Church is of utmost priority. Some would say that all one needs for salvation is to believe and that churches cause nothing but problems, fair enough, however, that person is missing out on much that a body of confessing believers offers, not to mention they are breaking from the biblical practice of Christians to gather together (cf. the New Testament)
In my life right now Shareen and I are in search of that place where we should plant our lives, either as a minister of the Gospel or as a church member. In either case it is important to think through a church’s distinctives in deciding if it is the place for one’s family.
On BaptistTheology.org there is a white paper by Dr. Thomas White that says there are three elements that are essential (the Being or esse) to a church: Gospel, Ordinances, Believers intentionally gathered. (p. 8). He then lists parts of the church that are for its bene esse or Well-being. These are elements that take a more narrowed view on some doctrines, those that would define a church more precisely. For instance, he lists: expositional preaching, believers baptism, memorial Lord’s supper, polity, etc. Yet there are others who would add another category called adiaphora, this would be those doctrines and teachings that do not fit into either of these categories. Others have called these primary, secondary and tertiary issues, treating them accordingly.
So in choosing a church one must make sure that the primary issues are in place. When it comes to the secondary issues one must study the biblical texts to find out where they belong. For me, some of these secondary issues are important. As a Baptist (or rather as I see the truth in scripture) I would need to find a church with regenerate church membership, a memorial view of the Lord’s Supper, and congregational polity, and others. This is how I view what scripture teaches on these subjects. I am well aware that others espouse different beliefs and are fruitful Christians. However, I believe they are in error.
It is the last issue, congregational polity, that has raised my head to think today. It seems that there is a movement for the institution of elders in many churches today. So let me begin by saying that elder is a biblical term and I am not one who is against the idea of elders. In fact Southern Baptists used to use it conterminously with that of pastor. (see the 1925 BFM XII., “Its Scriptural officers are bishops or elders and deacons.”) Over the last half century the term had fallen out of use in Baptist churches with the replacement of pastor. However, the meaning for Baptists did not change over this time. What is interesting for some contemporary Baptists who are “reclaiming” this biblical office is that they are not seeing it as it has been understood by Baptists. By that I mean they are moving away from a congregational polity to a Presbyterian polity.
You might be arguing now that there is a need for such a move so that ministers can have more localized control and that many congregations have been run amuck by out of control business meetings of those who do not regularly attend but are members. I am not saying that that is not a problem, it is and I think I have a solution to it that retains congregational polity.
In Matthew 18 Jesus institutes what most recognize as church discipline. In that practice it is the church (the complete body of believers) that retains the final authority on one’s standing in the body. In this case a board of ruling elders would not suffice. The body is the one who must decide what it is to be done. It is also the body, the gathering that should decide on the confession of faith, otherwise they have not joined together with a common goal.
Therefore, it is my contention that churches must be congregational and be covenanted together. That means that the congregation, those who are members, must agree with the confession of the church and covenant to live a life that fits with that confession and be willing to be disciplined when they are not in line with the confession. In this view the purity of the church is maintained, it remains a regenerate body, and membership’s importance is highlighted. Some churches now require an annual renewal of membership so that the body is reminded of what is required of them.
For me the importance is on the congregation. For others it might be in centralizing authority. Maybe I am unfair, but you know pastors who would love to do what they want with little accountability. If we rightly confess and covenant to be a church together this form of polity can and has worked. Outside of those parameters any churches is headed toward trouble.
In my life right now Shareen and I are in search of that place where we should plant our lives, either as a minister of the Gospel or as a church member. In either case it is important to think through a church’s distinctives in deciding if it is the place for one’s family.
On BaptistTheology.org there is a white paper by Dr. Thomas White that says there are three elements that are essential (the Being or esse) to a church: Gospel, Ordinances, Believers intentionally gathered. (p. 8). He then lists parts of the church that are for its bene esse or Well-being. These are elements that take a more narrowed view on some doctrines, those that would define a church more precisely. For instance, he lists: expositional preaching, believers baptism, memorial Lord’s supper, polity, etc. Yet there are others who would add another category called adiaphora, this would be those doctrines and teachings that do not fit into either of these categories. Others have called these primary, secondary and tertiary issues, treating them accordingly.
So in choosing a church one must make sure that the primary issues are in place. When it comes to the secondary issues one must study the biblical texts to find out where they belong. For me, some of these secondary issues are important. As a Baptist (or rather as I see the truth in scripture) I would need to find a church with regenerate church membership, a memorial view of the Lord’s Supper, and congregational polity, and others. This is how I view what scripture teaches on these subjects. I am well aware that others espouse different beliefs and are fruitful Christians. However, I believe they are in error.
It is the last issue, congregational polity, that has raised my head to think today. It seems that there is a movement for the institution of elders in many churches today. So let me begin by saying that elder is a biblical term and I am not one who is against the idea of elders. In fact Southern Baptists used to use it conterminously with that of pastor. (see the 1925 BFM XII., “Its Scriptural officers are bishops or elders and deacons.”) Over the last half century the term had fallen out of use in Baptist churches with the replacement of pastor. However, the meaning for Baptists did not change over this time. What is interesting for some contemporary Baptists who are “reclaiming” this biblical office is that they are not seeing it as it has been understood by Baptists. By that I mean they are moving away from a congregational polity to a Presbyterian polity.
You might be arguing now that there is a need for such a move so that ministers can have more localized control and that many congregations have been run amuck by out of control business meetings of those who do not regularly attend but are members. I am not saying that that is not a problem, it is and I think I have a solution to it that retains congregational polity.
In Matthew 18 Jesus institutes what most recognize as church discipline. In that practice it is the church (the complete body of believers) that retains the final authority on one’s standing in the body. In this case a board of ruling elders would not suffice. The body is the one who must decide what it is to be done. It is also the body, the gathering that should decide on the confession of faith, otherwise they have not joined together with a common goal.
Therefore, it is my contention that churches must be congregational and be covenanted together. That means that the congregation, those who are members, must agree with the confession of the church and covenant to live a life that fits with that confession and be willing to be disciplined when they are not in line with the confession. In this view the purity of the church is maintained, it remains a regenerate body, and membership’s importance is highlighted. Some churches now require an annual renewal of membership so that the body is reminded of what is required of them.
For me the importance is on the congregation. For others it might be in centralizing authority. Maybe I am unfair, but you know pastors who would love to do what they want with little accountability. If we rightly confess and covenant to be a church together this form of polity can and has worked. Outside of those parameters any churches is headed toward trouble.
posted by Madison | 10:09 AM
|
8 comments
