Moderator: William Thornton
William Thornton wrote: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.
Jerry_B wrote: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.
Jerry_B wrote:Hard to argue with what you posted, but since I'm Baptist you know I will!
Sandy wrote:
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.
Tim Bonney wrote:Sandy wrote:
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.
So you are disagreeing with the 1925 BFM that made declared Elders/Bishops to be the same order of ministry? If so why? You seem to be saying that Elders are clergy and they aren't clergy in the above. Or, are you saying there is no such thing as clergy? You kind of lost me in the above post Sandy.
Sandy wrote: Bishops are elders, but not all elders are bishops. But along with Deacons, they are selected by the congregation from the congregation based on the exhibition of their spiritual gifts evidenced in the list of qualifications. They are chosen, or set aside by the congregation, and if there is a problem, they are rebuked by the congregation (I Tim.5::20). They do have authority to rule, but what I don't see is the separation of elders into a separate class of "clergy" as opposed to "laity." As church members met the qualifications, they could be called to serve.
William Thornton wrote: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 wrote: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.
Tim Bonney wrote:William Thornton wrote: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.
William, in those cases where they have an "Elder" rather than "pastor" what is the difference? Do they have an entire board of Elders (a la Presbyterian) or do the have a single Elder who is basically the pastor with another title?
When Baptist churches have a board of Elders what function does the board of Deacons serve?
Sandy wrote: 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.
Sandy wrote: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.
Haruo wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest