9Marks Churches

[William Thornton]

Since I started seminary 35 years ago, SBC churches that have elders have moved from a very, very few to a minority but quite common especially among new churches.

One should make a distinction between elder "led" and elder "ruled" churches. Both are baptistic by being non-hierarchical and autonomous but the former is congregationally governed and the latter not. I think there are historical precedents for baptist churches having elders.

I attend an SBC church that has a "lead pastor" who is an elder, a few lay elders, but no deacons.

[Sandy]

[Lou]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, I'm really surprised you'd reference the removal of Jesus as the criterion for as evidence for not believing in Biblical authority. From my perspective that change actually lessoned the role of Jesus and lifted up the Bible as a paper savior. Conservative Protestants castigate some Roman Catholics for making Mary "co-redemtrix" with Jesus. But removing Jesus as the criterion for scriptural interpretation verges on the error of making the Bible "co-redeemer" with Jesus. It was a theologically dangerous move because there are many many lenses through which you can interpret the Bible. If Jesus isn't the lens for interpretation you tread on shakey ground.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

For Baptists, the distinction is in the difference between General Baptists (unlimited atonement) and Particular Baptists, or Baptists in the Reformed theological tradition, based on their belief in what they termed "particular" redemption. While the theology and church order of the General Baptists prevailed, there have always been those in the Reformed tradition.

As the SBC developed, it was much more influenced by General Baptists. The BFM reflects church polity, but not in a way that is as definitive as a doctrinal statement on this particular point might be in a Presbyterian or Lutheran denomination.

As far as the "Jesus criterion" goes, it was not, nor was "He", removed from the BFM. The statement that replaced it, "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. " is much clearer, and a much stronger statement that Jesus simply being a "criterion" for the interpretation of random passages of scripture. If scripture is a testimony to Jesus, that's much clearer regarding his role as Savior than the criterion statement, which only emphasizes his teaching role.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, I do remember the different strains of Baptist history from General and Particular Baptists. And I know the SBC has always been a mix. However as I go back through Baptist confessions of faith I don't find confessions that hold up any kind of Elder model. I also know that Baptist churches are entirely (and from my perspective frightenly) autonomous.

Does that ever bother you or concern you? It is conceivable that through church autonomy a Baptist church (or even a denomination) could entirely depart from anything connected to historic Baptist polity or doctrine and yet call itself Baptist. I would think conservative Baptist would have some concern about losing their historic beliefs. I think some do since there has been some what of a conflict over the growing Calvinist movement in the SBC.

If a church abandons the historic polity of having a Pastor and Deacons for a Presbyterian Session of Elders what exactly makes it a Baptist church other than its autonomy which many non-baptist churches possess?

I think that current SBC leadership has a reason to be concerned with creeping Calvinism in the denomination.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, I get the idea of a "rope of sand." But are there boundries beyond which a Baptist church is no longer a Baptist church? If they aren't even using sand any more.....

Or is being Baptist totally reduced entirely to local autonomy? Is that the only distinctive that matters or really exists?

Also, I don't have Lumkin's book on Baptist confessions any more. I gave it to a Baptist friend since I didn't expect to use it much any more. But I remember quite a few of the confessions being from Particular Baptists and I remember no confession even by Particular Baptists that argued for a group of lay elders.

Historically Baptists were pretty close to Methodists on this. Early Baptist yearly annuals called pastors (not lay people) Elders. And the 1920 BFM uses that term for pastors as in Elders and Deacons with Deacons being lay people.

It seems like a big departure to me from historic Baptist principles. Not a big to me but I'm just surprised so few people seem to care that a number of Southern Baptists are bit by bit become a group of autonomous Reformed congregations with nearly Presbyterian polity.

The other question I have is the big Why?? What value do pastors see in convincing their churches to replace Deacons with lay Elders? I don't honestly see the point.

[William Thornton]

Timothy: The other question I have is the big Why?? What value do pastors see in convincing their churches to replace Deacons with lay Elders? I don't honestly see the point.

Some think it will avoid deacon dominated churches. Some think it proper because Mohler or Dever or someone else said so. Some go with the flow of the young, hip, restless, critical new clergy crop - peer pressure. Some insist the Bible demands it. Take your pick.

It is a trend. Some would say it is a fad.

[Sandy]

I don't think there's ever been conclusive agreement among Baptists as to what actually constitutes "historic Baptist principles" and what doesn't. There are some confessions of faith, but those are generally heavy toward things like soul freedom, the unique connection made between professing salvation, baptism and church membership, the nature of the triune God, the spontaneity and freedom of expression in worship, and if church polity and order is a factor, it is the lack of separation between clergy and laity, and the independence and autonomy of the local church, that are uniquely "Baptist." I haven't been in a Baptist church with elders, as far as being able to observe how that works, but in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the churches are elder "led", not "ruled" and the congregation is consulted, via an annual meeting, regarding elder reports and decisions made.

If a "historic Baptist principle" is determined not to be consistent with sound Biblical interpretation, then it is subject to change, to make certain the church is Biblical in practice and teaching, which is in itself as Baptist as you can be, with an identity that rests on the statement, "No creed but the Bible."

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

"Elder ruled" makes me think of the polity where the Elders are a self-perpetuating board, i.e. when a vacancy occurs, the Elders elect a new Elder to fill it. No power resides in the congregation in such a polity. Very biblical, look at how Judas Iscariot was replaced in the case of the Twelve. However, I doubt if many present-day churches of this stripe draw straws to let the Spirit lead.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

No Sandy. I was formerly listed as clergy in an SBC annual, in associational minutes and annuals while in the SBC. Ordination is recognized for clergy beyond the local church even in the SBC. My ordination form from an SBC church says that I was ordained "to the work of the gospel ministry." I have seen deacon ordination certificates (I used to give them out too) and they don't say the same thing nor is the church voting to do the same thing. Pastor and Deacon ordination aren't the same and yes pastors are destinguished as clergy even though their membership is vested in the local church.

Are you sure you worked in the SBC I did? You sure did not sit in the same ordination councils.

[William Thornton]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]