Elders in the SBC

[William Thornton]

So, the estimable and avuncular Haruo almost attended Sovereign Grace Baptist Church, I think a GARB kind of Baptist, and certainly Calvinist and no doubt with Elders.

And ex-SBC, ex-ABC, now UMC Timothy asks about "lay elders" in SBC churches.

And CBF oriented (Alliance maybe?) BDW has never visited a small to medium sized SBC church with elders and only one smallish mega with such.

Ah, you guys are all sooooo out of touch with SBC stuff. Sandy sees elders in PA but did not so much down South or West.

This is a calvinist thing, of course, with a good chunk of grads of some of our seminaries self-identifying as Calvinists and Calvinist influence in the SBC is such that many Calvinist pastors are using the term, mostly for what they describe to be "leading" elders, those who preach, teach, etc., rather than "ruling" elders, those who have the authority formerly residing in the congregation. These may be church staff or not.

I would cast a wary eye at any SBC church that suddenly has elders. Often, in my wild conjecture of an opinion, this is a method to diminish the role of the deacon, or a route to moving power away from the congregation, but sometimes it's just a pastor who gets a burr in his saddle to change the terminology.

Memo to any SBC pastor search committee: Look very carefully at any candidate who prefers elders. You've likely got yourself a genuine Calvinist and ought to know it before you call the guy to be your pastor.

I've written several articles on this on my witty, insightful, and informative blog for those who care.

[Tim Bonney]

[Jerry_B]

Don't like a church not being congregational in government, wouldn't go to one nor would I want to pastor one. Power to the people! It can be messy but I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Tim Bonney]

[Jerry_B]

Hard to argue with what you posted, but since I'm Baptist you know I will!

I'm a realist, no right thinking person could look at the history of congregational rule and see a nice neat package of church rule and governance. It is not the history however that draws me to congregational rule, though I must admit it is at the very least entertaining and heartbreaking all at the same time. I believe that the creativity and giftedness of each individual should have a voice in how things are done. This voice should be fully empowered to suggest and approve new and different things as well as the ability to say no, we aren't doing that.

I'm not saying other forms of church governance don't allow for some suggestion and implementation but do they have the power of no? For me this trumps the messiness and the sorted history of congregational rule because I truly believe it isn't freedom unless you have the freedom to say no. I'm sure it is my Baptist bias speaking but I just can't imagine not having a say in so many important decisions.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

Southern Baptists here in Western Pennsylvania tend to mingle with the other Baptist groups, and there's really not a clear identifying mark or division between Baptists of most stripes up here. GARBC would be the denomination with the most churches, followed by a number of independent, reformed Baptist churches. The swapping back and forth of members and leaders between the churches has put a strong Calvinist influence in many of the SBC churches, so they have elders. And since there is also some member crossover with Evangelical Presbyterians and Christian and Missionary Alliance churches as well, and they are elder-oriented, the Baptists tend to be similar.

I do not see any place in the order of the church in scripture where some kind of separate, "clerical" authority was granted to elders of the church. The Apostles were certainly a unique group of individuals with a very unique role, but most churches, once formed, did not have apostles, but elders and deacons. Pastors are elders, the two terms are used interchangeably, but I don't see a distinction in authority that separates some elders into a separate "clergy" class, while those who do not appear to draw their vocational service from the church are less in authority. In fact, this is leadership by spiritual giftedness, not leadership by title or authority. The elders "directed" the affairs of the church, preached, performed teaching responsibilities and handled the money. But it is clear all through the book of Acts that congregational authority was behind their leadership. When the deacons were selected, the scripture very clearly says that all the disciples were gathered together and consulted. Likewise in the case when the letter was sent from the Jerusalem church to Antioch. Churches gathered in houses, selected their leadership from within the group, and they exercised authority granted by the group. I do not see a distinction between "laity" and "clergy." That comes along later, not from Biblical origins, but from a time when the church was forming a heirarchy.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Blake]

Some Anabaptists had/have /elders, /ministers, and /. I've come to prefer their model over pure congregationalism for many of the reasons Timothy has already mentioned. As to Jerry's concern, this model didn't hamper their ability at all to say no and fracture.

[William Thornton]

A church which has a three tier, or three category, system of leadership - pastor, elders, and deacons - is clearly outside of the BFM. In cases I am familiar with churches retain deacons and have elders instead of a pastor or pastorstaff.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

BTW, if I understand my Presbyterian friends setup they have a Board of Elders "ordained" to that position. The pastor is considered the "Teaching Elder" and her/his ordination is different. United Methodists pastors are usually "ordained Elders", Deacon is actually a clergy position in the UMC often for people who don't ever want to be the lead pastor. Deacons usually cannot officiate communion or perform baptisms. Our Bishops are not a "third order." They are Elders who are elected to be Bishop and then consecrated to that role.

So I guess one of the questions is how you interpret in the New Testament what an "Elder"is. Baptists and Methodists certainly have seen "Elder" as the term for the pastor. The Roman Catholic Church and The Episcopal Church see "Elder" as synonymous with Priest/Pastor as well.

"Deacon" in the Episcopal Church, Catholic Church, and United Methodist Church is a clergy position but it is a lay person in the Baptist church and the Disciples Church among others.

Bishop is a third order of ordination in the Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church but not in some other churches.

So there are several structural models for church leadership but if you end up adopted the theology of one of the above groups, as Baptists going Calvinist, you may also end up being attracted to their structure as well. Makes sense to me.

[Sandy]

There are only a few references to qualifying and choosing elders and deacons in the New Testament, but what is lacking in all of them is a specific instruction or example of separating the overseer, or Bishop, from "laity." Elders were called to service right out of the congregation they came from, and they were designated based on their qualifications. Paul tells Titus to "choose elders in all the towns," but in Timothy and Peter, the elders appear to be selected by the congregation based on the qualities he outlines in his epistle to them.

The clergy/laity distinction is an evolutionary practice that, for Protestants, is a holdover from the Catholic system that developed as the Bishop of Rome progressed and evolved from being simply a pastor, to being the infallible Vicar of Christ. So a special designation was needed to separate the elite from the common people in terms of ecclesiastical authority. For Baptists, and most other Evangelicals, there is no ecclesiastical class system with "clergy" or "laity," the designations are occupants of an "office" by virtue of meeting the scriptural qualifications and leadership ability, not by title or position. So pastors of Baptist churches are Elders, and by designation and qualification, others who serve the church vocationally in ministry, or voluntarily as the case may be, would be also. But they serve as members of the local body of believers, not as "clergy". Baptist churches are independent and autonomous, and if the pastor doesn't join the local church, there is no "church" structure to which he can belong outside of it.

Baptists, including Southern Baptists, do have foundational doctrines. They are rooted in a belief that the Bible is the written word of God, not that it "contains" the written word of God, and in the interpretation of it in its literal sense rendered by its historical context. There is wide acceptance of the idea that learning is progressive, and as the church moves forward and meets the challenges presented to it by shifts in culture, it is constantly evaluating its position and its relevance, as well as continually studying the scripture, and it is correcting itself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit as it moves forward. Those churches and denominations that are locked into doctrinal positions and practices which are only examined at the highest level of clerical authority, and depend on some kind of historical assertion have seen millions of church members leave because they are looking for significance and relevance in the practice of their faith, not some historical mile post marker that represents a faulty prior doctrinal position that wasn't open to examination or reflection because only the clergy can do that, and because their authority rests on prior interpretation, not on the scripture.

Being congregational is a part of this. If there is a separate clergy class, it isn't anywhere in the New Testament. In Acts, when the deacons were chosen, the entire assembly (Ecclesia) participated. In the Jerusalem council, when the final letter was drafted, the assembly (Ecclesia) again approved.

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

I see the work of an elder as leadership in the various functions of the body of Christ. The way we do church now, in our culture, incorporates the use of vocational ministers, some on a full time basis, some bi-vocationally, to provide overall oversight of the ministry of the church, while there are others who are spiritually gifted as elders, who provide the same kind of spiritual leadership, but do it on a volunteer basis. And I don't think this is a limited calling, I think anyone with the spiritual gifts combinations needed for leadership can be called to serve a church as an elder. I believe the intention, as expressed in both instruction and example in the New Testament, was to open the door to as many elders within a body as were qualified according to the requirements that were laid down, not limited as a result of the size of the church. Paul speaks in terms of the church being a "body with many parts," and for each part to function as it is intended, it requires the leadership to work together, which means that there is an elder who oversees the whole ministry, and then elders who lead the various "body parts" in their work. Theological education in the early church was an in-house ministry, beginning with the apostles providing the teaching, and writing down what they were led to write by the Holy Spirit for further instruction. One of the problems I see with a "clergy class" is that people depend on them to "do church" for them, and tend not to include them in fellowship or build relationships with them because they are "different."

Here, in Western Pennsylvania, I am meeting, through my job, a large number of individuals who are pastors of churches, but who are either bi-vocational in terms of salary, or not paid by the church at all, but serve as the overseer, and primary teaching pastor. There are several congregations within a dozen miles of my school which have no building, and no paid ministry staff which meet together in a variety of locations, from the back rooms of Starbucks and Panera Bread restaurants, to Dairy Queens, movie theater auditoriums, and even homes. They have elders who share the leadership and oversight responsibilities, with one or two doing the teaching and preaching, and as far as I know, none of them have any formal education in Biblical studies or theology, though all of them are highly educated people with Masters' and doctorates. That's how I envision the early church, more or less, without the degrees, and what I see as coming down the road in the future.

[Tim Bonney]

For me Sandy being an "Elder" or "Pastor" has nothing to do with salary, bi-vocationalism etc. It has to do with calling by God, recognition of that calling by the Church and placement by the church (however your church does that) in a leadership role in the church. I believe that ordination for an Elder/Pastor is to certain kinds of roles. I don't believe either that the purpose of being an Elder is to do all the work the of the church. Pastors/Elders are equippers. We are there to help give order to the ministry of the church.

But I also do believe there is a unique calling in being a Pastor which includes a call to preach the gospel which includes a different kind of commitment in your personal and vocational life.

You seem to want, for whatever reason, to use "Elder" to describe all/many gifted leadership roles in the church. I don't think that fits the New Testament usage of Elder/Overseer/Pastor. Yes there are many gifted lay people who do many ministries in the church. But they aren't the Elder who has charge over the over all leadership of the church. The person who is the "Lead Pastor" is a different role than any of the other roles in the church.

It isn't our job to equalize the leadership roles. It is our job for each of us to answer the call that God gives us to whatever role we are called to.

I am called to preach. I have experienced that call in a very personal almost Damascus road kind of experience with God. I am as sure of the power of that call in my life as I am that the sun rises every morning. It is one of the things in my life I have absolutely no doubt about. And I know from experience that some people have experienced that call and others haven't. There is nothing wrong with them having not received a call. But if they haven't they shouldn't be in the ministry of leading a church as the pastor.

A good friend of mine in ministry once said to me "if you can be happy doing anything else other than preaching the gospel go do it. But if you are truly called by God to preach you will never be happy doing anything else." I have that kind of call. I've known since I was at least 17 years old that I was going to be a pastor and preacher. When churches have treated me well and, even when churches have treated me very badly, I have still known that I am called to preach the gospel. And I know I'll be preaching until my voice is still or the day I die, whichever comes first. I have no choice. As Paul said, woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

If someone doesn't have a strong calling in their life to pastoral ministry, however they receive it, they aren't going to make it in this very taxing and stressful role. So we need to be very careful equating that call with just any other leadership position in the church. We only want the "called" to be leading our churches. We don't just want the curious or those looking for a job in the church because it is another job.

So I would much rather limit the term Pastor/Elder/Overseer to those who give that kind of lead role to the church. I think it is less confusing and less compromising to the knowledge that the call to a lifetime of pastoral ministry is different than the call of most other Christians whose call is worked out in other kinds of ministries of service in the church and the world.

[Sandy]

I don't see the term "elder" as applying to all gifted members. I just don't see an example in scripture where it is limited to just preaching and teaching. There is an emphasis on that, those elders are considered worthy of "double honor" as Paul says, but there's no indication that setting aside and recognizing the leadership and qualifications of individuals who are called to serve as elders separates them from the "laity." It's not leadership by official authority, it is leadership by recognition of calling, gifts and qualifications, and it is servant leadership by Christ's example. The elders of the church have the calling to equip the church for ministry, which means that all of its members are supposed to be "ministers." The idea of separation of "clergy" and "laity" comes from the evolution and development of the position of the bishop of Rome into the papacy. In Protestant churches it is a modified remnant of Catholic hierarchy.

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

There are a lot of other churches that were never part of the Roman hierarchy or papal supremacy, but they almost all have a clergy/laity distinction similar to that found in the RCC, all except the top dog. Look at Ethiopia, the Nestorians, the Copts, etc., not to mention all the normal Greek-related Orthodox.

[Tim Bonney]

[linda]

Mind a bit of a tweak from someone who is a "sister?"

Over and over I hear males telling us someone has to be in charge.

Might I suggest that is a man thing?

Groups of women often function quite well by consensus. Christian groups of women often combine that with Someone, not someone, being in charge.

Some of the younger more emergent Christians around here are absolutely turned off by discussions about someone having to be in charge, and who that can be.

So they are out and about winning the lost pretty effectively.

Tweaking over, and peace to all!