Presbyterial or Congregational?

I am not a fan of the Baptist Faith and Message... as I am not a Southern Baptist. I do find that only the smaller churches in the SBC are actually purely democratic/congregational. Most of the larger churches tend to be undemocratic and tend more against congregationalism.

The question you pose about the LBC is a good one. I think it would all depend on what the definition of congregationalism means. If it means democratic/congregationalism, then I would agree that the LBC strongly opposes such a view. If it means that the congregation does not input or makes any decisions, I think that is mistaken as well.

While I respect Dr. Yarnell, if he is referring to democratic/congregationalism, I believe he has a long way to go in order to prove his point. American style congregational/democratic/republicanism is not Biblical. LBC would oppose such a view. Yet, no input or participation whatsoever in governance is also not prohibited in the LBC. Some Baptists believed, for instance, Matthew 18 demanded that if they were "brought to the church" it meand the congregation (Some believe it meant the Elders). This view goes back, if I am not mistaken, to the 1600's in Baptist life. I do not think the LBC forbids this. However, it does not mean they vote for everything within the church.

 

Again, this is difficult to construe without hearing the context of what he was saying. I am guessing that he is drawing his evidence in that the LBC leaned away from the Savoy in Chapter 26. However, since I have not heard his exact argument and the exact definition of what he is saying, I cannot truly clarify too much. I also do not have Sam's book here in Virginia with me, so I cannot read his words on the subject (which, I assume, is where this man is getting his information).

I only know what I remember from Sam's teaching. I do not see a forbidding completely congregationalism, yet showing forth that Pastors are the Pastors, I do not see too much where we may be disagreeing. I do not think any of my three disagreements with the LBC would lead to the disagreement.

Thus, I am not sure we disagree... and I believe we might agree. If we don't, I would love to be there when he and Sam talk about it.

 

Congregational guy myself, in fact turned down an opportunity to apply to a church because they were elder led not because they are unbiblical, as there has been evidence for that type of rule in the Bible. Because I prefer a congregational rule based on the premise of the the Priesthood of the Believer. The same Spirit that is with me is with others as well. There are precautions we take, such as committees, to ensure that the immature believers don't end up running things so to speak. But in the end the whole body of the church has a say in how we run things.

 

So you appoint people onto committees (which are not found in the Bible anywhere) who are not qualified to be Elders (thus normally less mature) to do what I think Elders? And then you say that immature people are not running the church?

I am not a committee person. I believe there are two committees in the Bible: The Elders and the Deacons.

However, I do hold to the priesthood of the believer. Yet, that does not mean that everyone is on the same spiritual level with the same wisdom. It means that all Christians can equally go to God without a mediator save one, Jesus our great High Priest. Priesthood does not mean everyone has the same theological, spiritual, and wise insight as others. That is why there are "Elders." They have been recognized to be men worthy of double honor.

Elders are people who meet I Timothy 1 and have proven to be men worthy of double honor. Those are the people I think should focus the direction of the church, not people who cannot meet that criteria.

 

How true! How true! And the cycle repeats itself when these same babes sit on the pulpit search committee filling the vacancy they created.

...Bob

 

All church rule is an "adaptation" of what we see in scripture. For us the question is how much do we trust the people to yield to the Spirit in matters concerning the congregation? There have been examples of great congregational rule and great elder rule, though the reverse is also true. Committees aren't mentioned in the Bible, but then again neither are church buildings, pulpits, constitutions, by-laws or doctrinal statements. We use these things to clarify how things will be done within the church. If a group of people are okay with elder rule for their church, that's fine, so be it. We as a church have chosen to invest the people, all the people, with the final say.

 

Yes, there are no mention of church buildings, etc... however there is a distinct difference from how a church is governed (which the Bible does address) and so it is not like we are dealing with a totally silent Scripture. Governance is clear in Scripture and thus should take on a greater weight where the first goal is to fulfill the Biblical Standard, not the other way around. As for doctrinal statements, I do believe the Bible had these. There are several places where scholars recognize doctrinal creeds of the time written and affirmed in Scripture. Philippians is full of such creeds as was I Corinthians 15. So, we see by example these were important in the early church. Bylaws, granted, are a modern legal protection. Granted, they are not needed, but our modern legal system almost makes them required. They are a necessity of culture.

However, I still wonder why you would want someone running the church who is not spiritually qualified to run a church. Your argument of silence is not an argument.

God did not leave the governance of the church to our imaginations. He gave us Elders for the spiritual leadership and Deacons for the material. Both had strict guidelines they must meet and they must be tested. When there was a need, they sought out Godly men to oversee the fulfilling of the need. There was no committee who got together where everyone had the same power of vote. There were Elders who oversaw the deacons and deacons who had strict criteria to meet in I Timothy 3. The congregations worked with them.

Committees are an invention of our modern culture.

 

You also asked about how much we trust people to yield the spirit in matters of the congregation.

I think this is the essence of Elders. Basically, milk people shouldn't be making meat decisions. Now, I trust my three daughters immensely. They are good kids. However, I do not trust them to make some important adult decisions. Why? They are not ready.

Let me give you a prime example.

A few years ago, I was contacted by a person wishing to plant a church. We talked and I gave him some honest and straight-forward advise which he ignored. The man was not a Pastor and I do not believe he met the qualifications of a Pastor. What was scary, is most non-elders I met said this was a great idea. However, most Elders/Pastors I knew (if not all) saw trouble and problems. It wasn't that we didn't want another church plant, most of us were talking with how we could plant more churches. Not because we held the gift of prophecy, but because of spiritual wisdom that should be a qualification of an Elder, we saw problems that most did not. Every Pastor I knew saw through to the problems of this plant. Few other had understood.

I do believe everyone is spiritual, I do not believe everyone has the same spiritual wisdom and insight. That spiritual wisdom and insight comes through Sanctification and is a work of God. That is why God gave us Pastors and Deacons and strong qualifications. Pastors are to keep a watch of the flock and utilize that wisdom to protect and nourish them.

 

Pigs do fly....this is probably one of the only times I agree with you.

 

In elder led churches how are the elders installed, or selected.

 

Various churches do it different ways. I believe they should be appointed as it says in Titus. This is distinct from elected. Those who appoint future Elders are Elders. In other words, someone does not become an Elder because they can garner 51% of the vote, but they are because the Elders have observed and determined they meet the qualifications. How Elders agree varies as well. On this decision, I have most often seen that the candidate must be unanimous among the Elders. Others will say that there must only be consent among every Elder.

After such a determination, often there is an announcement to the congregation of a possible candidate for Elder. The congregation is given several weeks to express any concerns to the Elders. Those concerns are taken under advisement. If after this time period the Elders believe someone should still be appointed, they will formally appoint them as Elders.

This requires those who are spiritually discernable to be involved in the process. It also requires congregational input. However, this is not a democratic process.

 

Excellent post. I will also add to this that the elders can also appoint some in the congregation to assist, ala pastor search committees. This still goes back to the elders for final clearance, and the committee remains under the elder's authority.

 

Yes, there can be times when the Elders draw upon people with certain expertise to do things in the church. I know an example where the Elders had a couple of Lawyers in the church draw up a constitution. None of the Elders were lawyers but they appointed these men for that specific task under the direction of the Elders. The committee itself did not have any authority outside of the Elders. Truly, it was just not really a "committee" in the technical sense, but a group from the congregation using their giftings for the work of the church.

 

This is not a point of contention. First, the phraseology "church" is oftentimes used of older Baptists to refer to either the leadership and or to the congregation. We see this today when people debate Matthew 18 portion of Scripture where it says for the offending party to "take it to the church." Some believe this is the representatives of the church like the Elders. Some believe this is the congregation. There is evidence of church being used either way throughout the New Testament (Clowney's book on the Church is an excellent resource for this). Either way, the LBC clearly states that the Elders must lay hands on the person, which requires their authorization and consent, which I do not believe anyone doubts. This is why the consent aspect given to the church is announced. If someone has issues with the person not meeting the qualifications it needs to be known. The LBC does not say that the congregation

As well, the LBC does not call for a vote, this is not the idea being portrayed.

Finally, I see the decision for Elders much like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. The Apostles and Elders made the decision and the church agreed. In the actual letter they noted the Apostles and Elders with the entire church (emphasis mine). The congregation were not asked to vote, but they voiced their agreement.

I do not see this is in violation of the LBC at all. Rather, this fits with what we know about older Baptists in that they viewed the Elders as representatives who spoke for the church and acted for the church. Yet, everyone provides a provision for the congregation.

I just never have seen voting truly as a Biblical concept either. That seems to be the only other alternative.

 

Someone (mature or otherwise) doesn't run the church, WE run the church huge difference. Someone gets to state an opinion, even have a vote (if members) but WE make the decisions.

The early church was Jewish, so one would expect an elder type system to come from those of this background. Also, the church was in its infant stage and elders where a pretty good way of keeping things on the rails. Though clearly, not always effective.

How can you be so sure mature elders is any type of protection from error or unwise decisions? You can't. That doesn't mean elders are evil and unbiblical just not the guarantee you are making them out to be. Remember for all the great thing the early elders came up with, the Corinthian church struggled, John is addressing Gnosticism, at least the early stages of it, in his later epistles.

It was elders who championed for state supported churches and it was congregationalists who wanted to get the Bible to the masses. So it really does cut both ways.

All systems are adaptations of interpretations. No system is perfect and I can't be convinced that elders are more biblical then congregational rule.

 

I guess when I say I trust the people what I am really saying I trust the Spirit that lives in the people. People are flawed, the Spirit isn't. The Spirit seeks unity, if the people seek the Spirit then unity will result. Doesn't always work that way but we uphold the ideal while dealing with the realities of flawed people.

What happened to the church plant?

Again it isn't the someone running the church or even a couple of someones running things, it is WE running the church. Power to the people! (if you could see me I would be holding up my arm with a clinched fist:thumbs

 

Jerome,

Another notation on this point. I do hold to the LBC 1689. However, most LBC 1689 churches allow for minor disagreements and some churches often have a statement of minor disagreement to the LBC. This is acceptable as we do hold that the Scriptures must be obeyed first and foremost.

I, for instance, have some difficulty with a minor statement on Baptism and the Lord's Supper. However, most would say I hold to the LBC.