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:
There is another further subdivision in the church into three groups which is important in considering where one wants to plant themselves.
The number of folks opposed to the preacher.
The number of folks who think they like the preacher.
The number of the second group that will eventually join the first.
By observation I have developed an equation that will consider satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels within the congregation and the rate of changes there in. Properly charted, the point of equilibrium where the lines cross is referred to as the point where the preacher is about to be fired.
I just thought I would add that to your list of lofty lists. I assure you there is far more certainty in my list than any of those you mention.
Dad
Hey Madison,
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Maybe you can clarify something for me. In my mind, all issues, issues all the way from essential orthodoxy to those that are adiaphora are ALL beliefs based on what I think scripture teaches.
So it seems to me that there must be some other basis (other than, "This is what I think scripture teaches.") for determining what beliefs fall in which categories of importance. All of my beliefs are based on what I think scripture teaches, from the Trinity to which direction to immerse believers in the baptismal waters.
So, finally my question, why do you see single pastor vs. multiple elders as an issue that falls in the second level?
Michael,
Great question. The difference in the levels has to do with the relationship between all of the categories. The secondary issues are more closely tied to the primary issues than the tertiary issues. For example, take polity. If Dr. White is correct, and a gathering of a group is a primary issue, then how it is played out becomes a secondary issue: polity. Also note that how it is played out is important to the whole church, multiple views within the church could not exist by nature therefore it could not be tertiary. However it is not primary because churches can exist with different polities.
The adiaphora or tertiary issues are those such as eschatology. A church can still function as such without too much strife having members who are dispensational and those who are not.
I think doctrines from all three categories are important. I have a view on all of them that I have derived from the Bible that I think are true. However, I recognize that others will disagree with me. It is the results of those disagreements that determine the categories. If someone denied the Gospel then I could not call them a Christian. If someone chose a different polity than mine, then we are still brothers in Christ, but I would not belong to the same church as him. If someone disagreed about eschatology we could still have fellowship within a church and have disagreements.
Madison
Madison,
You commented: "A church can still function as such without too much strife having members who are dispensational and those who are not."
This makes sense from a typical SBC perspective, but try saying that to a hard-core DTS Bible Church! From your perspective they are then making an issue primary that should be tertiary. However, from their perspective, eschatology is a primary issue (right down to being included as one of the top ten points in one of their doctrinal statements).
By the way, who requires an annual renewal of membership? I've never heard of that.
And all this time I thought it was about the quality of the cooks for dinner on the ground!
Seriously, these are good thoughts. We also have to look at where we fit into the local body of the church if we are not going to be the pastor...are our particular gifts needed in that congregation and for that, God leads in very interesting ways.
Anonymous #1,
The first question I need to ask is whether that Bible Church would consider you a brother or not if you disagreed on eschatology. If so then they have made, wrongly so, eschatology, a primary issue.
The issue is level of fellowship. If they are willing to say I am not a Christian because I do not espouse dispensational thought, then they have a right to believe that. Of course they are wrong.
I am not a 5 point calvinist, I do not believe in infant baptism, however I have good friends who hold to one or the other or both. I consider them Christians, because those are not primary issues. To me one is secondary and the other is tertiary. For my father they are both secondary. We can hold different views because we go to different churches. Ultimately it is up to teh church to decide which issues belong in what categories in order to practice their faith within a community of faith.
Madison,
I'd bet you've already seen it, but bpnews.net posted an article yesterday that Mohler wrote a few years ago concerning theological triage, which is similiar to what we are thinking through here.
Two things.
First, what makes denominational life so difficult is that while all SBCers can affirm the BFM 2000, one congregation/church/pastor will affirm a particular section thinking it is adiaphoria, while another thinks it is a second or even first level issue.
Second, it seems to me that to be obedient to Jesus' prayer in John 17, we should do as much as possible to place second order issues where they belong: much closer to tertiary than first order issues. Unity among brothers and the Church's imaging of trinitarian fellowship demand it.
All that makes me hope that the editors of the next BF&M, while not compromising on SBC distinctives, will also have as an agenda item the task of showing what we SBCers have in common with all Christians, in all places, and in all times.
I am unsure what in Matthew 18 is problematic for a church led by ruling elders. The text in Matthew simply says to take the matter before the church with the hopes that he/she will "listen...to the church". There is nothing here that demands a congregational polity, but rather the informing of the local body and the reaction of that body against a sin, which they in turn speak against, perhaps symbolically in their exclusion from the Supper.
Post a Comment
<< Home