Baptist No longer a Church Democracy, We Are Now a Theocracy?

Under the New Covenant, we are all priests under the leadership of the sole High Priest. No single man or group of special men are given "the oracles of God" apart from the rest of the members of the Body of Christ. This is Catholic doctrine; not Bible doctrine.

I am always baffled when a very young man is made pastor of a church & is considered to be wiser, more knowledgeable, a better leader, more discerning, more spiritual than men in the congregation who have been saved for decades. This is completely backwards. Personally, I don't think any man is qualified for the office of elder that has not proven himself in the community, in life, & as a husband/father long before he applies for the career of pastorship.

 

Yep, spot on!! I don't believe there is any biblical or any historical evidence from the writings of the church fathers that Christ intended the church to be a democracy.

 

My apologies if I read (interpreted) your response incorrectly.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Unfortunately the truth is that though some people might have good intentions about having God "rule" a congregation that is neither the NT example nor something that has been faithfully practiced.

Too often when men stand up and proclaim a "theocracy" over any other polity they end up leading to division and a personal agenda. While there might be an earnest desire to truly allow God to be in leadership, the reality is often that it ends up an extended exercise in personal credulity. I've never seen an environment where someone stands up, says this, does this, and the community stays together in this way.

Who is the arbiter of God's voice to the congregation? Who is able to hear the Holy Spirit definitively? If here is a disagreement about God's voice, who interprets? At what level do we take authority (i.e. does God care about plumbing, carpet color, pews vs. chairs, etc)?

In most instances "theocracy" ends up being "autocracy" that defeats God's people and God's purposes. I've just never seen it work.

 

This first premise is true and I agree; however, the subsequent are not logically consistent with the first statement. We should define terms in order to understand the rest of the discussions.

Soul Competency- E.Y. Mullins defines Soul Competency is the right of all people to have direct access to God. This is limited because, like general revelation, it is open to all.

Priesthood of all Believers- is defined as "Priesthood applies only to those who, through repentance and faith, have been admitted into the covenant of grace and, consequently, have been made participants in the priestly ministry of their Mediator, Jesus Christ, i.e., to believers only." Priesthood is access to the throne of Christ, but it is related to the church, not seperate from the structure of the church.

This is where you get off kilter, the Pastors are in charge and are responsible for preaching the Word of God, the Doctrine of the Word of God, and the focus of the Word of God.

Let's note, Elders are people who rule and the congregation is to submit (I Timothy 5:17). They are also told to exercise oversite (I Peter 5:1-5). This oversite is not to be domineering, but there is are still people they oversee those "in (their) charge." In Hebrews we are told to submit to these leaders (Hebrews 13:17).

In essence, they are people who are entrusted in a manner that is beyond most congregation members. Yes, they are entrusted to preaching and upholding the Word of God, but also to ruling.

Therefore, your statement above is not accurate. Yes, every Christian has access to God, but not everyone can rightly divide the Word of Truth nor have the knowledge and wisdom to shape the entire direction of the church. For this reason, we are given a group of Elders who are to rule well.

I partially agree, but I don't believe that our broken system in finding pastors and jettisoning a multitude of Elders should give us an excuse for disobeying the Bible.

 

Thank goodness you said this so well. :thumbs:

I will say this...I don't buy the soul competency thing as a Baptist distinctive. I think Priesthood of all Believers covers the bases quite well. (I do think EY Mullins would have been a fine man to know.)

 

Don wrote;
"Sheep cannot vote, not "do not." I would also caution that we have only one shepherd.

What is your viewpoint on the priesthood of the believer? Or, as some call it, freedom of conscience or soul liberty?"


It is true that we have one Master Shepherd but He has put under shepherds over us for the leading of the church. They are to lead guide and yes even rule. 1Tim.5:17. Quantumfaith asked me about rule verses leading, but my understanding was he was asking about an un-wise dictator type ruling and not a Spirit leading type rule.
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

The Greek word for rule in that passage is proïstēmi and means
1) to set or place before
a) to set over
b) to be over, to superintend, preside over
c) to be a protector or guardian
1) to give aid
d) to care for, give attention to
1) profess honest occupations

Sometimes the line is fine between leading and ruling as it is impossible to lead with no authority and that authority comes from God not the members and has the meaning similar to the type of ruling the husband has over the wife which is to be done through the same type of submission that Christ did for the church. She is to submit to him in his rule, and the church is to submit to the elders rule over them. That rule would be all that is involved in leading the church in the ways of God including church discipline if needed. No place does any passage even hint that the people have any authority in leading the church or even deciding its direction and this includes deacons. Deacons were never intended to have authority in ruling, making policy, or being the ones which govern the Pastor Elders. Deacons are intended to be table waiters who serve with honor. These have no authority given them by the Lord at all. This is why it is so important in picking a Pastor and Elders that have all the qualifications that the scriptures give. Sadly the baptist churches has fallen way short in this area and we are paying for it.

As to the priesthood of the believer. Yes we are all priests unto God. That means we all have the same authority to come to God on an individual bases for our daily lives, but it does not mean we are all equal in position of authority. A man and a woman have the same standing with God in spiritually, but they do not have the same standing in positional authority. Only a man can be a Pastor/Elder and not even every man can meet the qualifications of that. The husband is the head of the wife and never the reverse and so on. The same wiTH the Pastor/Elder roles in regards to the church. The members are not the head, the Pastor Elders are. So, while every believer is a priest and has equal access to God it does not make everyone equal in their position in the church or home.

So to keep in tune with this threads subject the Pastor and Elders are the ones who are to lead/rule the church not the members and no it is not a co-equal sharing or anything of that kind either. While certain duties can be designated to members they are never to be given authority above, outside or even equal to the Pastor Elders. They are always to be subject to them in what ever they do and should not be making decisions on their own for the church and that includes committees. Every decision that has to do with leading the church is suppose to be done by the Pastor Elders. That would include how money is spent, new ministries, what is taught and by who, all building projects, who can join the local church (acceptance into membership) and much more.
I do believe that in a healthy church the Pastors and Elders should always be giving an account for what is spent and where including their salaries and all compensation and this always open to any member. In other words there needs to be an open accountability. Keep in mind this is the Lord's church not ours or a Pastor's.

 

was this the Munster incident?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münster_Rebellion

 

I do not believe that the United States of America existed when Mathias was chosen by the remaining eleven disciples in the book of Acts. Maybe I should go back and check to see if Luke survived until 1776, but to my knowledge, he died before that time.

If I recall history correctly, I think the seven deacons had already been selected by the bretheren in Acts 6:3 before the Civil War broke out.

King Saul was annointed by the Lord by chosen by Israel to be King (1 Sam 9:20) long before the Constitution was ratified in 1783.

The point is someone has to administer local churches to represent the Lord. How would one run a theocracy? Is that one person calling the shots for every decision that occurs within a church? Who decides who that person will be?

You say you find no evidence voting for church leaders in Scripture. How were the leaders in all of the local churches Paul addressed chosen? How do you expect them to be chosen now?

From the example I have seen of so called Christian leaders on this board (see the thread on pastors and sarcasm), there is no way, no how, not in this lifetime I would entrust the administration of a local church to any one person without checks and balances. If a local church needed a pastor, how else would he be called to pastor to that church? Would he walk in the door one day and say "God told me to take over, now sit down and pay attention."

Your argument might hold water if there was a general expectation that church leaders in America today were more spiritually mature and a cut above your regular church member like me, but that holds no validity. Churches with hierarchies have a bunch of people in charge who are socially well off usually, not spiritually fit to lead. Elder rule usually turns into elder worship.

Until the Lord returns to lead us, no way would I entrust such authority to one person in today's mindset.

 

Well said and truthful.

I find the "democratic method" in our churches to be one of the primary reasons they remain small and unable to be a factor in the building up of God's kingdom.

The people are locked in debate and committee (or family) and they never actually accomplish anything. One of the key growth indicators is whether or not the people will follow a godly leader(s) or will they all wish to be defacto leaders in their own right by being loudest at business meetings?

 

You are right, it did not. However, this was not a "majority rule" vote by all the congregation, but a selection by the Apostles of another Apostle. In other words, the leaders selected another leader. This was not a democratic process in any way possible.

I am not totally against participation of congregations, but this again was not democratic. There were clear criteria, the point was to select leaders, and the congregation acted upon the order of the Elders to appoint such men to an office. This was not necessarily a democratic process, but they selected and the congregation agreed to several men then submitted them to the Apostles. Notice, it was the Apostles who eventually appointed the Deacons through the laying on of hands. This is not an example of modern congregationalism, but my system.

King Saul was anointed as King long before he took office officially. However, this again is not an example of democratic rule. If you read the entire context, it was Samuel who appointed Saul, not the country who voted in democratic elections. Yet, I am not against a Republican form of government in secular affairs, but I am against it withing the church.

Elders rule as noted in the previous post and Elders appoint Elders (Titus 1:5). Nowhere is it given for the congregation members to have full authority. Often, they act in response to the Elders or they act as a result Elders commission.

Titus 1:5 says they were appointed. This Greek word is radically different than elect or even select, but it denotes people of authority infusing people without authority of new authority. In this case, the command to another Elder was to appoint an Elder.

I have addressed this before on this list and will give a brief summary on how a pastor is appointed in a church, but this is beyond the scope of our conversation.

1. In the Bible, generally pastors were appointed from within the congregation. There are exceptions, but it is very rare in the New Testament to appoint elders in a church from outside of the church. Churches should be bringing up their next generation of Pastors and Elders from within the church.
2. When churches cannot appoint Elders, they may appoint a well respected Elder for a time to raise up other Elders. This is the case with Titus in the book of Titus. Since Elders appoint Elders, this letter could not be written to a congregation but a respected Elder (someone they could personally testify to their qualifications) could go into churches and raise up Elders from within the congregation.
3. If neither of those are available, other local congregations with whom the church respects, may send an Elder to your congregation to become your Elder.

Again, the main principles are:

1. Elders appoint Elders, they are neither self appointed nor congregationally elected.
2. Elders are not to win popularity contests and get a certain vote, but should be unanimously selected by the Elders
3. Elders should be tested in character and thus should normally be tested from within a congregation and selected after a time of seeing this person handle life situations. Everyone selecting him must be able to verify that this person's character meets the criteria of I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

No doubt this occurs, but every church I have belonged to with my form of government were ruled by Godly men who loved each other and the congregation. Pure democracy often pits ignorant 1 week old Christians against well thought out and spiritually Godly men. The results are disastrous. I do not think that one of my Elders should have the same voting right as a one week old Christian, I think that is setting us up for failure. Rather, I would rather take the best and most spiritual men, appoint them, and trust in their leadership.

BTW, I am not trusting in one person, but I believe every church should have a plurality of Elders. I would rather submit to a group of Godly men who have been personally tested and shown to be Godly, respected enough that everyone recognizes their character to where he gets unanimous support from other Godly men, than a congregation that can get 51% or 3/4ths vote after meeting with the guy for just a couple of weeks.

I also note that you really did not defend your view from Scripture. My view is simple, we must appoint, they must be people we can personally testify of their qualifications, and it is not based upon majority rule but unanimous consent.

 

When Mathias was chosen, NKJV, which I use mostly, (I have no problem with any version, this is not a King James debate), it said they cast lots. I asked several pastors and people from our association once exactly what this meant. As I have said in other posts, I have no training in Greek or Hebrew. They told me it was the same as a vote. Getting back to Saul, yes, Samuel did appoint him, however, in verse nine, in the chapter cited above, it says the bretheren were totally in favor of the decision. If I recall, the whole issue was the Lord letting the people have the king they wanted to teach them to rely of God's choice (Samuel) instead of their worldly one.

None of this addresses the practical question. You said several times, that elders appoint elders. First of all, elder rule (worship), is rare in Baptist churches. I grew up in a Presbyterian Church, and have twenty plus years of oberving that compared to thirty plus years of observing congregational rule in a Baptist Church. It seems to me that our point of disagreement is on the general spiritual maturity of elected church leaders in modern day America. Did you read the thread that was started by someone else on sarcasm of pastors on this board? This is probably a good reflection of the type of leadership in our churches, not rampant, but significant. Another point, the deacons in our church are light years beyond the Presbyterian elders in the other church I attended in the area of spiritual maturity. You know one of our deacons as brother Tom on this board. He has no formal theological training, but has read book after book and book, and very seldom have I found a more knowledgeable person. There is not one ounce of arrogance in him. He has gotten our congregation to think outside the box about God's sovereignty and end time issues.

There has to be some way to adminsiter a church. Maybe our church is an exception, but the average member in our church is very versed in the Bible. We go to Bible study regularly, and talk about spiritual matters in the lobby instead of the weather or Mitt Romney.

I understand your points, and doubt that the culture in Biblical times gave much thought to voting and democracy. If there was a group of men that were good leaders and wanting to nurture the sheep, as some would say, I would have no problem with elder government.

That is what is good about each church being autonomous. We can each decide which form is best. I would not be, under any circumstances, be in a denomination that had a built in heirarchy.

I enjoy your posts. I sincerely hope one day you will be back pastoring a church.

 

Thanks, I may be back pastoring one day, if certain things work out in my private life. There is a church that I have talked to in quite some length about joining their staff, but my life is such that it is impossible for me to commit to them at this time even though there is the open door. Hopefully, by the end of the year we will know more.

This is how I think things should be done, too. The church and I know each other very well and they can all testify of my character and doctrine through an extended period of interaction. They love me and I love them. We are very good friends of the staff and congregation. So, if I join the staff (which I am not saying I will) they know my weaknesses, strengths, and I know theirs. They know my doctrine and I know theirs. There will not be a surprise.

 

Actually, casting lots was a lot more like "drawing straws" than taking a vote. They were PRAYING and ASKING for GOD to make the choice so as to pick the correct individual.

I believe the jury is still out as to whether or not they actually did pick the right individual, as it would seem that the Apostle Paul was perhaps the right choice for #12. But, in any case, there is still no "democratic" polity in the Scriptures. For what it is worth, neither is there a presbyterial polity or a episcopal polity. Elders were appointed and there is virtually always a plurality of elders within a local congregation.

Of course, that begs the age-old question, from where did the original appointed elders come? Well, they were appointed by the Apostles who were elected to office -- appointed to office -- by Christ Himself. Thus, all local congregations are indeed tied together in an universal church that was started by Christ, but not in the way so often promulgated by some baptists, i.e., the trail of blood. in which one man sought to change the entire landscape of Baptist belief (and he almost suceeded!) with his rather un-researched tome.

 

wasn't it curious that the One the Apostles chose never appeared to have anything written down about him, but the One jesus selected and sent unto the gentiles is the One who received the greatest revelations ANY person ever had from God?

 

How does a group of people appoint an elder without taking a vote? How can an elder be appointed by other elders if the church does not already have multiple "appointed" elders in place. Also, elders were mature men who had already proved themselves as leaders & Godly men in the community. I believe it would revolutionize the Church if elders were appointed out of the congregation instead of voted on out of a college or another community. Wisdom, discernment & understanding are products of years of Godly life experience in the "real" world where church members live & work. In our culture, most pastors preach on subjects of life & living about which they cannot relate. I've heard too many preachers lecture & opine on how we should live among sinners when they are insulated from life among sinners.

 

I agree, and your points are why churches start new churches instead of denominational agencies. While in Baptist life there are a lot of partnering denominational agencies, THEY do not start new congregations. An existing congregation extends itself through a new congregation. That is the NT model. Elders stem from the existing church and are appointed to the new one.

We, however, have turned that on its ear with our come here and go there model of church life. We no longer really identify with the local congregation and feel free to church hop whenever and wherever we please, which extends to the "calling of a pastor" (of which I have been the recipient multiple times as well as being on the "calling" end of the affair several times). I don't like it, I don't find it biblical, but it is pragmatic and what we do, so we do it. I would GREATLY PREFER to raise up within the church the new leaders for it, and we can trade between sister churches, as is the example in Scripture where there was obviously quite a bit of movement between congregations, but not in a church hopping sort of way.

 

I see three problems with some thinking on this thread.

First: There is a problem with using the term "appoint" to mean chosen.

The church as a group chose both deacons and elders. The word appoint as used in Titus

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:"​

means an "ordination" (confirmation by laying on of hands) over the choice by the body of believers in which Titus was "appointed" (commanded, charged) by Paul to do. Titus did NOT choose the elders.

There wasn't any elder going into a congregation such as Titus and choosing who was to be the elder(s). Rather, he took of the group selected by the local congregations and "ordained" that group. This was what Paul "appointed" (commanded, charged) Titus to do.

Second: The thinking the congregation didn't vote.

Again, this is not correct. For the first incident was when the Apostles were made aware that the gentile believers were not getting their fair share. They instructed the church to choose from among themselves men who would then be ordained by the Apostles as deacons - care takers and givers over the physical stuff. At NO time were the deacons given care over the spiritual aspects of the local assembly.

The apostle Paul told the church folks to select the elders of the local assembly. At no time were the elders given care over the physical need aspect of the assembly.


Third: The thinking of the "priesthood" of the believers.

Every believe is responsible for their own growth and to be submissive to the illumination of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit.

Under that illumination of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, the member of the assembly is to actively listen as the pastors and others teach/preach. The believer to to sift all they hear to find what is agreeable with the Scriptures and hold it as gold, and what is not is to be considered nothing of value and trashed. That individual member is to submit to the teaching as discerning in what is considered valuable under the Scriptures. But that submission is first to the member's responsibility in fulfilling what gift they have been given by the Holy Spirit to the assembly. No member is puffed in authority or station above any other member. That is clearly taught in the Scriptures.

Under that illumination of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, the individual is responsible to God for the conduct of the assembly. If they find a member at fault they are to go to that person and use the Scriptures to bring guidance and restoration to the truth. They aren't supposed to leave it all up to the elders to discover and resolve. Each member has responsibility to the each member of local assembly as such in humility.

Elder rule is limited to the delivery of the spiritual education to the well being of the assembly as the deacons are limited to the delivery of the physical assets of the assembly to the well being of the assembly.

NO place in scriptures does it declare that elders are to be determiners of who else is to be an elder, or what buildings are to be built, or the acquiring of dismissal of pastor(s).

The believer has one to whom they are responsible to submit, and one to whom they answer. There is no "hierarchy" that stands to answer before God in the sense of the believer responsibility and charge. Each believer has the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. Each believer will stand individually before Christ as to the gift(s) given and the use. Those who are elders and deacons have to stand for how they conducted them self within the position in which the assembly intrusted them. Those elders who do well are to be doubly honored - for they have skillfully attended and faithfully delivered the Word of God.

Unfortunately, there are not very many assemblies that hold the deacons, elders, and each other accountable to the Scriptures. The vast majority would rather be warming the bench,cheer from the sidelines, and let others engage in the battle on the field of play in pretentious pretending to escape all accountability of the final score.