Moderator: Bruce Gourley
William Thornton wrote:We've reintroduced the term "elder" in the SBC. I never heard of elders in SBC churches 40 years ago. Now almost all new churches have some kimd of elder system. No more pastor and deacons. Now lead or senior pastor, elders, and deacons. I've never heard the elder group referred to as a presbytery, mainly to stave off criticism that we're becoming Presbyterian churches, I suppose l
Haruo wrote:So now if it's "lead/senior pastor", elders, and deacons, is a Minister of Music an elder? A Youth Minister or Hospice Minister?
Rvaughn wrote:In my church tradition a presbyter or the presbytery has nothing to do with Presbyterians or Presbyterian practice. A presbyter is an elder.
Rvaughn wrote:If speaking of a group of elders who form a council for the purpose of ordaining another preacher or constituting a new church they are commonly referred to as a presbytery, but sometimes an eldership. It is interesting to me to find this usage unusual to you all.
On the other hand, the elders among the Reformed Baptists (including those in the SBC that William mentions) are usually "ruling" elders who participate in the running the affairs of the church.
* "my church tradition" -- we're just country missionary Baptists who may have hung on to some things more urban Baptists have dropped.
What happened there? I'm not familiar with it, but found online that in 2018 the First Baptist Church of Lynden voted to withdraw from their membership in the ABCUSA and changed the name of the church to Lynden Community Church.Haruo wrote:The few times I've heard of such a thing up here, including the FBC Lynden case which is the one that stuck in my mind...
I'm not aware of any churches here who both consider elders as ordained ministers and speak in terms of an Elders' Board or Board of Elders. I have heard it used among those who have another office of elders separate from pastors and deacons.Haruo wrote:...I think the term used was "Elders[ ' ?] Board" or "Board of Elders".
We also don't use the terms Diaconate or Deacons' Board, just say "the deacons." I am familiar with Southern Baptists in the area who have/call theirs Deacons' Board or Board of Deacons. They usually wield more authority than in our churches. I remember filling in one Wednesday night at an SBC church years ago. It was also their business meeting. They first had a meeting of the board of deacons. Afterward one of deacons read the minutes of their meeting. When they came to something they recommended, one deacon made a motion to do it, another seconded it, and then the congregation voted on it. I don't know how widespread such usage is among Baptists, Southern or otherwise, but it was the only time I had seen anything like that.Haruo wrote:We do have churches that refer to their Diaconate, others that call it a Deacon[s'] Board, and then those like us at Fremont who call it "the Church Council" and the Deacons "Committee Chairs". Generally the ones that call it a Diaconate seem to put more into the ordination thereof, while we "Council" folks emphasize their election (by the congregation, though usually unopposed).
Rvaughn wrote:What happened there? I'm not familiar with it, but found online that in 2018 the First Baptist Church of Lynden voted to withdraw from their membership in the ABCUSA and changed the name of the church to Lynden Community Church.Haruo wrote:The few times I've heard of such a thing up here, including the FBC Lynden case which is the one that stuck in my mind...
KeithE wrote:Or could it be, the NT comments on elders, overseers, deacons, etc. was never intended to be normative for all time?
Different times suggest different organizations and any church should be free to try whatever they want.
Tim Bonney wrote:It has also allowed churches to decide that some people get to be in charge simply because they are male, or white, or celibate, or wealthy or whatever.
Tim Bonney wrote:[…] the "anything goes" approach … has led the Roman Catholic to to claim (at least historically) that it is the one true church with the Pope as THE head of Christianity.
I found that statement on their website, HERE. I didn't notice anything that indicates a current affiliation, but I didn't spend a lot of time on the site.Haruo wrote:Interesting, I hadn't heard that Lynden "left the fold". I wonder if they simply left ABCUSA or if they left the Baptist bit altogether (not that I think they would then go in for sprinkling infants). If they are still Baptist, I wonder if they joined another denomination of us (like Reformed Baptists or GARBC or something) or if they are simply unaligned independent Baptists now. ("Community Church" tells you absolutely nothing. There are Community Churches in Evergreen, and others that are Mennonite, and others that are dually aligned UCC/UMC or UCC/PCUSA or something...
That sounds much like the ruling elders that I hear about among the Reformed Baptists.Haruo wrote:Anyway, my awareness of Lynden and their Elders dates from probably the late 1990s, when ABCNW was in the process of deciding what to do with itself in the face of the Gay Issue. There was some sort of Area- or Region-wide meeting that took place at Fremont where the featured speaker was the pastor at Lynden, and the topic had something to do with polity. I really don't recall the details, except that he was (and apparently his church concurred in being) adamant about the importance of having an ordained Board of Elders to make sure the pastor towed/toed the line. My impression was that their role was to adjudicate questions of faith and practice, and to ensure that the pastor didn't run off on a tangent. Maybe the Presbyterians "Session" did some of this sort of oversight and ruling, I'm not sure if "Session" was just Elders or if it included Deacons. My uncle Roger was an Elder at Rose Hill Presbyterian when I was in high school, and I think later my brother Graham served in that capacity at Westminster Pres. in Portland OR.
Haruo wrote:I don't think that was "anything goes"; if anything, it was prooftextism run amok. Politically motivated determination to focus on a literal interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (Rheims: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ")
Haruo wrote:Interesting, I hadn't heard that Lynden "left the fold". I wonder if they simply left ABCUSA or if they left the Baptist bit altogether (not that I think they would then go in for sprinkling infants). If they are still Baptist, I wonder if they joined another denomination of us (like Reformed Baptists or GARBC or something) or if they are simply unaligned independent Baptists now. ("Community Church" tells you absolutely nothing. There are Community Churches in Evergreen, and others that are Mennonite, and others that are dually aligned UCC/UMC or UCC/PCUSA or something...
Rvaughn wrote: We also don't use the terms Diaconate or Deacons' Board, just say "the deacons." I am familiar with Southern Baptists in the area who have/call theirs Deacons' Board or Board of Deacons. They usually wield more authority than in our churches. I remember filling in one Wednesday night at an SBC church years ago. It was also their business meeting. They first had a meeting of the board of deacons. Afterward one of deacons read the minutes of their meeting. When they came to something they recommended, one deacon made a motion to do it, another seconded it, and then the congregation voted on it. I don't know how widespread such usage is among Baptists, Southern or otherwise, but it was the only time I had seen anything like that.
KeithE wrote:Or could it be, the NT comments on elders, overseers, deacons, etc. was never intended to be normative for all time? Different times suggest different organizations and any church should be free to try whatever they want.
Sandy wrote:
The Evangelical Friends congregation that I attended for a while before moving from Pennsylvania would agree with that statement. They believe that "setting apart" for ministry does not create a "clergy" vs "laity" status, but that those set apart are simply members of the local body with whom the church agrees with their calling. It is expected of all members to share in various responsibilities related to the operation and function of the church and they take turns doing it. I was always amazed that there was never a shortage of individuals to serve. There are individuals who function as "elders" in the sense that they have the responsibility for ministry functions in the church but at some point, the vast majority of church members become involved in those responsibilities.
Sandy wrote:The Friends congregation would say that Paul was an apostle, and there is no apostolic office in existence any more.
Tim Bonney wrote:By the way, I think all denominations have suffered from adopting business models over New Testament Church models. This means that pastors are thought of as employees and not church leaders in many congregations because they pay you a salary. (This happens some in any denomination.) And churches are thought of as non-profit businesses over ministries.
How far would the Apostle Paul gotten with the church of Corinth if he were an employee of the church? When he told them about all the things that were wrong with their worship, etc. they likely just would have fired him. (Not to mention he'd have never gotten past a pastoral search committee.)
Return to Baptist History and Heritage
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests