Elder-Rule on the Rise in the Southern Baptist Convention (Part II) by Peter Lumpkins

 

   Below is the second part of a section I selected from Dr. Robert Wring’s intriguing paper published in the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry (Vol. 3 No. 1 Spring 2005: 188-212). Presently pastor of the Mountain Road Baptist Church in Spanaway, Washington (near Tacoma), Dr. Wring based his essay on his doctoral dissertation he completed in 2002 at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, the thesis of which was “An Examination of the Practice of Elder Rule in Selected Southern Baptist Churches in the Light of New Testament Teaching.”

This is Part II of my selection (Part I may be found here). From his paper entitled “Elder Rule and Southern Baptist Church Polity,” Dr. Wring concludes:

  Does It Really Matter What Kind of Church Polity Southern Baptists Use? 

I think it does. New Testament teaching concerning biblical church officers, Baptist history in general, and Southern Baptist history in particular, congregationalism, and the priesthood of the believer mandate that we practice a polity that is in keeping with what Christ intended for the governing of His church. Elder rule does not support that mandate. Instead, it usurps it and bypasses Christ’s intended principles of church government which are leadership by a pastor(s) and deacons, and the congregational polity which allows every member of the church to participate in the making of informed decisions which affect their corporate lives. The elder/pastor leads the church in spiritual matters. He guides, teaches, and leads them by his example, and through his preaching. The deacons are his helpers and they serve the membership by taking care of the temporal needs of the congregation. The congregation follows its leadership; not blindly, but by mature thinking and willing obedience. Together, the leaders and the membership decide issues and make decisions.

Since this is true, Southern Baptists need to do something about it because the problems caused by elder rule may affect the way Southern Baptists practice their polity in the near future. Within the next 10 years, as more churches adopt elder rule as a means of carrying on church business and daily affairs, State Associations and State Conventions will have to determine how they will deal with the issue in the churches under their sphere of ministry.

Already there are several State Conventions that have documents in place that will not allow them to fund new church plants if those church starts decide to have an elder rule type of church polity. Even the North American Mission Board has personnel policies and guidelines that help them steer clear of the elder rule form of church government.⁶⁵

Nationally, the Southern Baptist Convention leadership will need to clarify the wording of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement dealing with the proper officers in a Southern Baptist Church. This is needed so that there is no misunderstanding about what we believe regarding church officers and church polity. Also, the elder rule issue could become more divisive than it already is, and it could develop into a matter of fellowship among grassroots Baptist churches and drive a wedge between denominational loyalty on the local, state, and national levels.

There needs to be more material written about church polity from the standpoint of contemporary Southern Baptist writers who will produce strong arguments against the elder rule form of church leadership. There is presently a famine of such material in contemporary monograms, systematic theologies, and church manuals. Southern Baptist leaders need to develop their own seminars that will directly address the biblical and Baptistic position on church leadership from the standpoint of our unique Baptist distinctiveness. The seminaries need to provide classes on church polity and Baptist distinctives which do not divide us, but that teach us the truth and draw us together as we seek to corporately lead people to faith in Jesus Christ. And we need young pastors who will believe and practice our distinctive Baptist principles of church polity instead of trying to put together a church by whatever pragmatic means seems to look like it works.

Does it really matter what kind of church polity contemporary Southern Baptists use? Yes, it does! We need to return to our roots and grow again the Baptist tree that is both biblically true and scripturally sound, and that is historically Baptistic in its beliefs, polity, and practices. John L. Dagg was right. Church polity is not as important as winning people to faith in Christ, but it is important. Why? Because Christ gave commands on the subject in the Scriptures; therefore, we must explore the issue of government in the local church and we must be sure we are doing it right! ^{end of Wring selection}

Since this paper was published, the focus on elder-rule and plurality of elders has continued unchecked in the Southern Baptist Convention.  A mediating posture that church polity is not important as long as the gospel is being preached may initially sound healthy and even spiritually superior to a perspective which insists on ecclesial government driven by New Testament revelation and attested in the cradle of our cherished Baptist heritage.  However, in the long run, the gospel itself will inevitably be compromised; for where there is corrupted ecclesiology, corrupted soteriology cannot lag far behind. One need only think of the post-Constantine Medieval church to demonstrate how inadequate, unbiblical ecclesiology drains away the purity of the gospel. Southern Baptists do well to avoid the destructive mindset which implausibly asserts that church government makes little difference to being healthy Christian disciples...growing and planting healthy, New Testament churches.

Hence, I share Dr. Wring’s concern about the rise in elder plurality rule in Baptist life. And, there does seem to be a definite parallel between a focus on being “Reformed” and being “elder-ruled.”  One could legitimately ask, who among Southern Baptists, insists on elder plurality rule who does not also vigorously embrace the “Reformed” understanding of the gospel? While there may be some who do, there remains nonetheless an embolden link between the two (i.e being “Reformed” and embracing elder plurality rule) among those who are most prominent in Southern Baptist life.

Incidentally, as soon as the schedule was announced that Southern Baptists would not be meeting nightly for convention business in Phoenix, 9Marks Ministries was ready to announce they were "Coming to Phoenix!" to hold a seminar for SBC attendees.  Of course, Dr. Mark Dever and 9Marks Ministries remains one of the biggest influences of elder plurality rule among Southern Baptists.

If our brethren do not soon awaken to what’s taking place before our very eyes, the Southern Baptist Convention will retain little hope for survival.

With that, I am…

Peter

Related: Elder-Rule on the Rise in the SBC (Part I)

Get Dr. Wring's paper: Download Robert A. Wring on Church Polity

⁶⁵Wring, “Appendix Three,” 243-252.

Comments

[Josh C]

Peter,
The one area where "elder rule" might be in place outside of the Reformed circles is in some of the megachurches (more like the corporate board or staff-ruled) or in some of the churches that still hold to the "deacon board" model that I believe came about largely due to the practice of circuit preachers in the 1800s. I would be interested in reading more about those two streams in Baptist life which seem to practice a kind of "elder rule". (I think the Willow Creek model was mentioned in the previous post as an example of the megachurch stream.)

[Job]

Is elder rule on the rise (after the manner of a new phenomenon) or merely making a comeback (meaning something that was present in the past)? There is a difference.

Also, all of these invocations of "Baptist history and tradition" are but attempts to mislead, for it takes the patently erroneous position that General Baptists are the only Baptists, or at least the only "real" Baptists. As much and as strongly as you may to claim that Particular Baptists are actually Presbyterians in theology and ecclesiology, your stating those words does not make it so.

[Jonathon Woodyard]

Peter,

Dever and 9Marks one of the biggest proponents of "elder plurality rule"? I am confused, so, admittedly, trying to understand and seek clarity.

You can view my comment on Part I of this post that I typed a few minutes ago.

Have you personally attended and been part of the life of CHBC where Dever is located? Have you seen them engage the congregation and bring matters to them? Have you read the thorough defense of congregationalism by Dr. Dever and other 9marks men? I have (although that does not make me an authority). I have read their documents, a number of times, and found their defense of congregational polity to be stellar and very helpful.

Now, just because one writes to defend a position does not mean that they "practice what they write." However, watching them actually work it out is impressive. They have (when I was present) over 15 elders that would meet, pray, and discuss the business of the church. As the spiritual leaders charged with oversight (Hebrews 13:17, etc) they would work through various issues and then bring recommendations to the congregation. But they would not move ahead without congregational approval.

Now, that doesnt mean every decision was brought to the congregation. The nature of congregationalism doesn't demand that. The pastors should have some freedom to lead. They are appointed to lead by the congregation and it would be ill-advised to bring everything to the church. And each congregation needs to decide what things come to them and what authority they give the pastors/elders. And it is true that CHBC has given their elders a good bit of authority. But it is authority given by the congregation.

I think CHBC is a healthy example of elder-led congregationalism without moving to an unhealthy example of elder-rule.

What am I missing that would lead you to think that Dever and 9marks are advocating an elder-rule (versus elder-led congregationalism) polity?

Humbly,
Jonathon Woodyard

[peter lumpkins]

Josh,

Thanks brother. My understanding of most mega-church cultures is a scenario where it is driven by a strong pastor (or in some cases, strong co-pastors). And, while the language used is "staff-led" most everyone knows who's sitting in the captain's chair.

I think you are correct to query our history looking for at least partial answers in our heritage. Not that we cannot find answers in the NT. Rather to find what our heritage found in the NT. Sometimes we got it wrong. Many times, however, they may have found solid answers from Scripture we overlooked.

Grace, Josh.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Job,

"Is elder rule on the rise (after the manner of a new phenomenon) or merely making a comeback (meaning something that was present in the past)? There is a difference” There may be a difference, but such a difference has nothing to do with the debate over elder-rule we're experiencing today--at least from my perspective.

"...all of these invocations of "Baptist history and tradition" are but attempts to mislead, for it takes the patently erroneous position that General Baptists are the only Baptists, or at least the only "real" Baptists"  Unless you can demonstrate this skewed monstrosity from what I've written in this post, don't post anything on this thread like this again, Job.

“As much and as strongly as you may to claim that Particular Baptists are actually Presbyterians in theology and ecclesiology, your stating those words does not make it so.” Read my response to the former monstrosity.

Here's the deal, Job: you make circuits around blogs, including mine, logging totally twisted interpretations of words written. When challenged on your obvious misreading of historical documents, you never show back up and correct it. I’m almost but not quite there yet of leaving all your comments in moderation. Of course, I’ll be accused of “censorship,” the old-stand-by of those who don’t get clutter logged. The difficulty you’ll face is, however, you’ve written so much verbal bunk like the above that you’ll hardly be missed for your rousing contributions to a conversation. Sorry, Job.  But that’s the way it is.

With that, I am…

Peter 

 

[peter lumpkins]

Jonathan,

Thanks again. I did read your comment and appreciated it. And, while I have not responded, I did respond to “Stephen” which raised some identical questions. I just haven’t got around to yours which, by the way, brings up some excellent points. Know I have not, as you, attended CHBC. So observation first hand is not reflected within my perspective.

And, as I said to Stephen, while I am reluctant to discuss Dever’s position in full (but am certainly presently engaging it in my reading), there are indicators which led one to believe Dever’s position lends itself more to “elder-rule” than “elder-led.”  Many of the contributors to 9Marks specifically lean in this direction. For example, Phil Newton, in his book, Elders in Congregational Life, makes a rather strong case of elder-rule, the glowing foreword of which was penned by Dr. Dever. Dr. Dever offers neither caveat nor reservation about Newton’s very strong insistence on not only elder plurality but also what can only be called elder rule. My point simply is, Jonathan, Dr. Dever’s organization—9Marks—has strong advocates of elder rule affiliated with them. Hence, how either he or 9Marks may remain on the parameters of influence toward elder rule I cannot grasp.

In addition, we have at least one scholarly dissertation which specifically profiled CHBC and concluded, “Dever’s church is a mixture of elder rule and congregationalism; which makes his church government structure a presby-gational polity” (embolden added) even though Dever himself “argues against the Presbyterian type.” Another indicator, then, of leaning toward elder rule. Finally, in the Foreword to Newton’s book, Dr. Dever says of his transition to eldership at CHBC, that he “used John MacArthur’s booklet on elders, circulating multiple copies of it in the congregation.” Is not this the booklet in which MacArthur suggests scripture implies “everyone in the church except the ruling elders is at a lower level of leadership in the decision-making process and should be under the authority of the elders”?

At this point I am unconvinced Dr. Dever is as congregationally-driven as may be implied from your words. And, know I’m continuing to evaluate it. Even so, 9Marks cannot escape the conflicting charge that it promotes elder rule when some of its key advocates obviously do.

Hope that helps for now.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Job,

Here is my final word: no more of your long, nonsensical comments will be posted at SBC Tomorrow until you a) write your comments without either explicit or implicit insults; b) go back and deal with your historical fiction on the other thread from which you conveniently walked away. I can assure you I have no time for the nonsensical, historical summations you offer without a slither of evidence. Clean up your mess, and I may—m-a-y—respond to you in the future. Otherwise, once again I suggest you read and stay in the background. But know your comments will not be posted unless the two conditions above are met.

With that, I am…

Peter  

[William Marshall]

Bro. Pete,

How would you describe the difference between elder-rule and elder-led? In your opinion, what does that look like?

Thanks,
wm

[Mark]

Peter, when I read the page at South Woods Baptist Church where Phil Newton is the pastor I don't come away with the understanding that they are elder-ruled.

Their page states:

At South Woods, we are Elder led, Congregation ruled, and Deacon served. Scripture clearly delineates between two offices in the local church: those of Elder and Deacon. The office of Elder is also referred to as Pastor (focusing on the shepherding role of the office) and Overseer (focusing on the role of oversight or management) in 1 Peter 5:1-2 and Titus 1:5-9. The qualifications of the office of Elder are set out by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. It is also significant to note that norm for the New Testament church was to have a plurality of elders in each church (Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23; 20:17). The primary function of the elders are the ministries of the Word of God and prayer (Acts 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 4:1-5). The notable difference between the qualifications of an Elder and those of of a Deacon are the fact that an Elder must be able to teach and exhort (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9).Continue...

I also have a close affiliation with Dever and his position is that of a church being elder-led not elder-ruled in a Presbyterian-like sense.

[Phil Newton]

Peter,
Thanks for discussing this important subject of elder plurality. Since my name, photo, and a book that I wrote on the subject has been mentioned, I thought that I would offer a couple of comments. First, you incorrectly positioned me as favoring elder-rule. I go to great lengths in my book, in essays, and in preaching to emphasize plural elder leadership within a congregational framework. I'm sure that you would agree that anyone in leadership has situations where he "rules" or "governs." That goes with the nature of leadership. However, there is a distinct difference between strict elder rule such as that posited by Alexander Strauch and elder leadership posited by Dever, Piper, and myself. Second, the brother who mentioned the practice of congregationalism at CHBC is right on target. I've been a SBC pastor for 33 years and I can honestly say that CHBC has the clearest practice of biblical congregationalism that I've witnessed. To say that they have elder-rule is to misrepresent them completely... . Third, I do know Bob Wring and sought to discuss the subject of elders with him on many occasions when he lived in Memphis though with little success for long discussion. I have read his dissertation as well. Bob is a very nice brother and well meaning, however, I suggest that you read it, consider his hermeneutics, and compare it to the writings you've mentioned on elder plurality before making assertions. In many cases, Bob does a great job attacking his straw man but fails to recognize that he's arguing against a different model than what is represented by Dever, Piper, or myself. He also failed to address with clarity the history of elder plurality in Baptist life. Fourth, I think that if you were to see how plural elder leadership works within congregationalism you would be pleasantly surprised. Having pastored 3 churches without elder plurality but rather holding to the typical SBC paradigm of deacon-run polity with a nod at congregationalism, there is no comparison. The plural elder leadership model gives the pastor strong accountability, protects the doctrine of the church, reinforces the pastoral model taught in Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5, and cares for the flock with more ears, eyes, and hands for ministry. I appreciate Mark (not sure who he is) pointing out what we believe with regard to polity at South Woods in Memphis. I hope this is helpful for the consideration of this subject. My desire is for healthy, biblical SBC churches. I am much more concerned about the character of the men leading a church than their titles. Though I believe that the Scripture clearly teaches elder plurality within a congregational framework (see Acts 14, 20; 1 Peter 5; Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3, etc.), the bigger issue is the faithful, godly character of the men whom the church has elected to serve them. Blessings, Phil Newton

[peter lumpkins]

Mark,

Thanks for the info on SWBC. From Dr. Newton's book he describes his church's leadership template as, "modified congregational/elder structure of church government" (p96). And, given his own testimony above, he does not view himself nor SWBC (nor Dever and 9Marks) for that matter) as elder ruled.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Stephen Beck]

"In addition, we have at least one scholarly dissertation which specifically profiled CHBC and concluded “Dever’s church is a mixture of elder rule and congregationalism; which makes his church government structure a presby-gational polity""

First, I'd like to express gratitude to Peter for your reply to me on yesterday's post. I do not wish to discredit Dr. Wring in the slightest but I must confess I find his conclusions very lacking. Can you direct me to any previous writings on how an elder board as shown in Dever's and similar churches is different in practice than Adrian Rogers' "deacon-served, committee run" church model? Dr. Wring's use of "preby-gational" seems accusatory if not pejorative and honestly he does little to back it up in his paper. He even says of WB Johnson, "He saw a plurality of elder/pastors over every church in the apostolic age, and their authority to govern each congregation was ministerial and executive in scope, rather than legislative." I do not see the difference between this and "The majority of church-related business passes through their attention" (of Dever's elders) nor is there any explanation of what Wring means that CHBC has "a limited amount of congregational participation and authority," a statement denied by some commenters here.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I'll be back, I assure. Duty calls me, however. It's Wednesday ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Hey Phil,

Thanks for logging on. Your comment surely added to the validity of the thread.

First you suggest I incorrectly positioned you as favoring elder-rule. Of course such depends on what one means by “elder-rule”. As I showed in the Acts 29 piece most recently, their documents specifically speak of a plurality of elders who “lead” the church. However, as they tease out the idea in their FAQs, it’s obvious they mean by the term “elder-led” what can only mean “elder-governed” (//link). Nor do I think you go quite as far in all your writings as you think to “emphasize plural elder leadership within a congregational framework.” Honestly, I think your book lends more toward elder-rule than you apparently think. One example will suffice. In your book, Elders in Congregational Life, you ask the question on page 106, “Who Holds the Elders Accountable?,” a question which affords the perfect opportunity to state unequivocally the obvious answer in a congregational model—the elders are accountable to the church they serve. Instead you strangely ignore any mention of the congregation whatsoever. Instead, you make them accountable to God alone, which, by the way is the exact answer I’ve heard for 30 years from solo pastors who serve as monarchs over God’s church, those whom you lament elsewhere as “dictatorial maniacs” (p.104).

Second, I have no personal experience with CHBC, so I cannot give any substantial commentary on that. I can attest to the fact, however, that CHBC’s is not necessarily under scrutiny here. Nor is your own church, Phil. Both you and Dever could have views different or even much stronger than the views your church embraces presently. After all, that’s precisely what transitioning a congregation from A to B is all about, is it not? Hence, CHBC may not necessarily be on the same page with Dever’s stated position any more than W.B. Johnson’s was on the same page with his stated position (for the record, I understand Johnson’s church did not accept his eccentric views on the “bishopric” as neither did other writing Southern Baptists at the time).

Third, you suggest Dr. Wring, while a good brother and well-meaning, makes “straw man” attacks in his lengthy PhD dissertation for Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. That’s an interesting summation—or rather dismissal—of a credible dissertation which earned him a doctor of philosophy degree. Not that all dissertations are flawless mind you. However, to implicate his scholarly work so readily as “straw man” tactics reveals more about your probable presumptions concerning the scholars on his dissertation committee as well as those before whom he stood in defense of his dissertation than it actually does about Dr. Wring himself. One wonders why they were so spastic they could not easily detect his complete “straw man” approach in his work. Even so, in my communication with Dr. Wring, I've hardly found him to be the unimpressive scholar you appear to make him to be, Phil.

Fourth, I’m glad for your positive testimony about serving in an “elder-led” congregation. Nonetheless, once again, the terms must constantly be in perspective not to mention whether or not biblical revelation attests to what, in my mind now, reduces to a three-officer model:  pastor (senior), elders who are not pastors, and deacons.

Thanks, again Phil. Perhaps you can log back on when I put up some more definitive pieces on your book.

With that, I am…

Peter  

[peter lumpkins]

Stephen,

A couple of things. First, Wring did not coin the term "presby-gational." It apparently was coined by Georgia pastor and historian James Renault in a 1979 paper for Baptist Heritage & History which focused on the hybrid practice of some Separate Baptist groups which combined congregational polity with Presbyterian polity of strong associational (i.e. outside) heavy-handedness in local church matters. Hence, I would not read too much into Dr. Wring's using the term. He is attempting to describe those Baptists who, in effect, want their congregational polity in tact while flirting with elder rule.

Second, I'd start with writing by James Garrett. He has an extended essay in 5 Views on church govt. Also, he deals with the issue in his systematic theology.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

William,

Thanks. I think Acts 29 offers on the one hand the perfect picture of the distinction between "elder-led" and "elder-ruled" besides offering evidence on the other how some are are calling themselves "elder-led" when they actually mean what would normally be dubbed "elder-ruled." My recent post entitled "Acts 29: Elder-led or Elder Ruled" discusses this at length.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

You said in your response to Phil the following: "Nonetheless, once again, the terms must constantly be in perspective not to mention whether or not biblical revelation attests to what, in my mind now, reduces to a three-officer model: pastor (senior), elders who are not pastors, and deacons."

First, would you agree that the New Testament terms "elder," "overseer," and "pastor" all speak of the same church office?

Second, would you agree that the most prominent biblical term for this office is "elder"?

Now on to comment...I see how you might arrive at seeing the plurality of elders within Baptist congregationalism as a three-officer model. One, you are trying to argue against the practice by linking it to Presbyterianism, which truly has a three-officer model. But two, even within plurality of elder leadership within Baptist congregationalism, usually there is a difference made between vocational elders and lay elders (ie, those elders who are supported financially by the church and those elders who are not supported financially by the church). Perhaps that's what you mean when you say "pastor, elders who are not pastors." Are you equating "pastor" to the elder who is vocationally supported by the church?

While a church might set aside one, none, or some of their elders for vocational ministry, there is still no difference in the actual office of elder. In other words, while there may be a difference financially, there is no difference in the substance of what qualifies the men for the office and what they are to do through the office. Within the plurality of elders, all of the men together pastor and oversee the congregation. Most of the time, one of the elders is chosen as the primary preacher, but all of the elders are ordained to the same office of elder/pastor/overseer, sharing in the feeding, care, protection, and oversight of the congregation. So, the plurality of elders leadership in Baptist congregationalism is a two-officer model: elders/overseers/pastors & deacons.

[Stephen Beck]

"First, Wring did not coin the term "presby-gational." It apparently was coined by Georgia pastor"

I realized after I posted that I was not completely clear. Dr. Wring earlier in the paper (not quoted by you) alluded to previous discussions of presby-gational polity. My point here was that his accusation that Dever and CHBC were presby-gational was without demonstration. Perhaps his "credible dissertation" has more substance, but it does not appear that MABTS offers their unpublished theses for viewing online. The paper you have reproduced is much more a summary of Wring's position than a defense, which leaves those with prior experience in the matter (personal disclaimer: I don't have direct involvement with any bodies mentioned but pursuing church training and a recent read of Hammet's book that I referenced on the other post have got me thinking about these issues) desiring something much more thorough.

Thank you for the mention of some further reading. Coincidentally, while seeing if I could find Dr. Wring's more extended research, Google instead led me to this document straight from Mark Dever: http://involve.9marks.org/site/DocServer/By_Whose_Authority.pdf?docID=301&JServSessionIdr004=do63m5clt4.app1a
It is about as long as Dr Wring's paper and thus has about the same level of thoroughness, but I think you will find Dever attempting to address many of the same issues that Wring discusses and from the same Baptist perspective, but ending up on the other side of the issue. Perhaps you may find time to address some of his thoughts? A couple money quotes: "Yet in our contemporary context, the phrase “elder rule” is typically used to mean resting final authority in the hands of the elders as opposed to the congregation. And that, as we have just seen, is what neither our Lord Jesus nor the Apostle Paul seemed to envision." "Ultimately, however, elders can act only by teaching and persuading the congregation. All of the duties, responsibilities, and obligations elders possess have been given to us by the congrega- tion we serve. Certainly God must call us, and we expect an internal witness to this divine call. But that internally sensed call of God must be confirmed by a visible congregation, by a partic- ular flock that asks us to shepherd them and follows us when we do. For this reason, an elder cannot be either installed or removed except by a vote of the congregation."

[Phil Newton]

Peter,

I appreciate you taking time to pick a few things out of my book on elders. The publicity is appreciated! However, I do want to point out that your point that I failed to identify the elders accountability to the church is unfortunately, from your perspective, ill-informed. You cited page 106 though I believe the quote you mentioned is actually on page 108. If you will notice the context of that statement, it has to do with an exposition of 1 Peter 5:1-4. The point I make is that BOTH congregation and elders are accountable to the great Shepherd of the Church. On page 85 I show congregational accountability while demonstrating (in the 1st paragraph) that accountability to Christ on the part of the elders (Jas 3:1; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:4) is even weightier. On page 139, explaining the necessity of regularly preaching on the qualifications of elders, I state, "Similarly, the elders themselves need the public challenging and accountability before the church in regard to what God expects of elders in Christian service." That's pretty clear, I think. Also, in the practical section of the book where I address transitioning to elder plurality leadership, I emphasize that the congregation nominates and ultimately approves the elders. They also have the power to dismiss an elder from office (1 Tim 5:19-20). Also, in numerous articles, sermons and discussions on elders I have emphasized the elders' accountability to the congregation. The fact that I did not do so in the page you cited is true but it was due to a contextual implication that I made, not a denial of church accountability. Your statement, "you make them accountable to God alone" is incorrect.

As far as I know with my own congregation, they are in agreement with my own views regarding elder plurality leadership. We have open discussion of this with those who come for membership at South Woods. We allow any questions or even questioning of our position. We also regularly invite discussion and questions of the elders. To my knowledge, CHBC under Mark Dever's leadership does the same. They are very open to their congregation's input. I'm wondering if you have read what Mark has written on congregationalism? It is wonderfully done and states our historic Baptist position quite well. Read his little booklet, "The Glory of the Congregation" as a primer on this matter.

Regarding Dr. Bob Wring's dissertation, have you read it? Until you have read it and analyzed it then you are arguing from silence. I would suggest that you read Dr. Benjamin Merkle's dissertation that would take an opposite view of Dr. Wring's. A dissertation is weighted in a direction by the influence in the scholar's life and study. I've written one myself and Lord willing, will be doing another in the next couple of years. The influence of those that I've read, studied under, and been influenced by will show up in my writing. For example, my first dissertation at Fuller Seminary was written under Dr. Peter Wagner some 22 years ago. I can assure you that were I re-writing it today I would come up with many different positions and conclusions than those I reached in that work. I see its flaws quite vividly now though I could not at the time. However, the approach that I took in it "appeased" the position of my committee so it passed. While we tend to lend credibility to dissertations due to the level of work necessary to complete them and the sanction of the particular PhD committee that passed them, none are to be read without discernment and critique. As an aside, I did not call Dr. Wring an "unimpressive scholar," so I put that on the record as your words not mine. I do think that he approached his dissertation with a quest to disprove any type of elder leadership or rule, rather than an openness to search out the biblical position. I would just suggest, read the dissertation in full and then we can discuss it.

As to three offices, I am in agreement with Bob Wring on this! He and I both agree that there are not two separate offices of ruling elder and teaching elder, a point that I make in my book on elders. I also find the attacks against elder plurality and senior pastor as constituting two offices to be rather interesting. I make the point in my book that with the typical church staff as elders (that would be the common position in SBC churches), that there is a distinction between the various staff positions: senior pastor, education pastor, worship pastor, youth pastor, recreation pastor, mission pastor, children's pastor, social ministries pastor. Why do we differentiate the titles? It is because while they all should be qualified to serve the local church by reason of the requirements of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, they have differing gifts and differing functions. Would all of those staff members be well-equipped and gifted to preach each Sunday to the congregation? I dare say from my experience into four decades of ministry in SBC churches, absolutely not! While I happen to have gifts that allow me to function in a regular pulpit ministry, some of our other elders do not share that same gifting or function (just like some of the other staff members in SBC churches), though all are involved in teaching (per 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:9). Some have much stronger gifts in administration and organization than I do so I gladly lean on their gifts and abilities to serve our church. The fact that we can approach our service in plurality strengthens my ability to use my gifts in a more intense way while the other elders do the same. If you are thinking of "pastor" strictly in the modern sense of someone who has gone to seminary and has been called to serve a church and hold the title of "pastor," then we're guilty as charged with holding to 3 offices. However, you will be hard-pressed to render that same kind of 21st century model from the Epistles or Acts. Did the elders that were set apart to serve the Ephesian church use the title of pastor, elder or overseer? We can imagine by the Acts 20 text that at least elder and overseer titles were used. But did they pastor? Certainly, as verse 28 makes clear. The word has more to do with function than merely a title since it is used as such only in Eph 4:11 though used in Acts 20 and 1 Pet 5 as a verb showing function. Our position is that elders are engaged in pastoring the flock. While I take the lead as the paid staff member and senior pastor, I'm joined by 6 other men who help to share the load of shepherding the congregation.

I hope that this is helpful for you.

Regards,
Phil

[peter]

All

My internet is unfortunately down. Might be out all weekend. Droid does not work so well on comments. I can approve comments however

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Stephen,

Thanks. As you rightly indicate, Wring comes down differently on some of the same evidence. Phil accounts for some of that at least by suggesting Wring reads back into the documents and makes “straw man” arguments. But I don’t see Wring’s study in that light. Frankly, it’s just too much of a simplistic explanation to accommodate. Nor do I think Dever could be charged in similar manner. Nevertheless, I think one of them must be judged lacking on the evidence. I’ll look more at Dever’s piece you linked. I’m sure I’ll post some more on this since I kinda got it in my mind now and can’t get rid of it!!

Grace, brother.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

 

Phil,

Thanks. Glad to give the publicity!  First, you are correct; I cited the wrong page number. Sorry. However, whatever you say is your point on page 108, your question “Who holds the elders accountable?”—which is the main heading--is answered precisely the way I suggested: you make them accountable to God alone—at least you do on p 108 (as for the congregation being also accountable to God I have no qualms, just the answer to the question you posed. 

As for making it clear that elders are accountable to the congregation on pages 85 and 139, I’m afraid again I don’t see it, Phil—at least in the strong sense you’re suggesting here.Indeed you explicitly state just the opposite! You write, “But the accountability spoke of in this passage points to another day…” (p.85). Again, that’s accountability to Christ not the congregation.

On page 139, your context is a yearly sermon (whether singular or series is not mentioned) preaching on the Scriptural basis of elders which accordingly “the elders themselves need the public challenging and accountability before the church in regard to what God expects of elders in Christian service." Phil, with all due respect, I’m not sure a message(s) preached reminding church/elders the Scriptural justification for eldership suffices for “clear” congregational accountability. Finally you mention that in the practical section you “emphasize that the congregation nominates and ultimately approves the elders.” Well, that’s one scenario you mention. You also state that “the Senior pastor chooses the initial group” of elder candidates, taking them through the “screening process.Afterward, “elders will nominate subsequent elders” (p134). And, in your footnote, you state this to be the most “plausible” method for beginning leadership in missionary settings (p166). This brings up a question, Phil:  how does your present church add elders to the eldership?

I must run presently but I do have some more questions pertaining to your response.

Thanks brother.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Jeremy Vanatta]

Peter,
How much of Dever have you read? Perhaps you should re-read him since it seems you have misunderstood him at several points. I'm a congregationalist, so I was very cautious when reading him for the first time. The fact is, he promotes very clearly an elder-led, congregationally-approving model. Ironically, Dever's elder-led model functions far more congregationally than two mega-churches I was a member of in Memphis, both of which held a regular business meeting only ONCE A YEAR while the senior pastor and the ministerial staff (aka, functional-elders) made all of the daily decisions on behalf of the congregation. Dever at CHBC has many more meetings than this each year for the purpose of involving the congregation in the decision making on a more consistent basis.

Sola Fide,
Jeremy

[peter lumpkins]

Jeremy,

Thanks. As I've conceded elsewhere, I've not read that much from Dever. But I can surely see the point those make who suggest Dever is a "pres-ba-gational" is his hybrid attempt to wed congregationalism with classic elder-rule (e.g. Robert Wring studied CHBC, its documents, and Dever's writings as a part of his doctoral dissertation for MABTS and concluded Dever & CHBC are a 'hybrid'). In addition, I think some of the contributors for 9Marks are clearly pro-elder rule. Hence, neither Dever nor 9Marks may be excused from their influential role in leading churches/pastors to embrace elder rule plurality.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Phil,

Continuing…

I’m glad you allow open questioning of eldership at South Woods. But really, Phil, who do you think is going to seriously question this now?  People who join your church now know of your position in advance. Nor is it likely there’ll be an attempt to usurp the eldership you’ve established.  I’m quite sure those who objected to eldership were thoroughly purged from your congregation during the transition period. I don’t know, therefore, what that information has to do with congregational participation. 

When you say Dever “states our historic Baptist position quite well.” Well, it depends on what you mean by “historic Baptist position, I suppose. If you mean our historic Baptist position concerning eldership, I’m afraid I must disagree. While there is surely mention of both elder plurality as well as “ruling elder” in Baptist history, there is no reason to believe either represent “historic Baptist position.”

I'd love to read Merkle’s dissertation.  As for “appeasing” the committee, are you suggesting Dr. Wring’s dissertation, like your own, “appeased” the committee under whom he was supervised?  Come on, Phil. You’re attacking the credibility of the process of Wring’s dissertation, not engaging the propositions in it. Wring’s dissertation is thoroughly researched, with adequate documentation anyone may check for themselves. Indeed, while Wring obviously cites much more than I have read in my own meager attempts at rummaging through both Scripture and Baptist history, his position is surely not novel. I’m surprised that you’re putting so much energy in dissing his work rather than disputing his content.

Nor did I quote you as using the term “unimpressive scholar,” did I Phil? Of course those are my words. I didn't pull a rabbit out of the hat though. In fact, to suggest you did not imply unimpressive scholarship when you bluntly wrote, “…consider his hermeneutics, and compare it to the writings you've mentioned on elder plurality before making assertions. In many cases, Bob does a great job attacking his straw man…He also failed to address with clarity the history of elder plurality in Baptist life” hardly is persuasive. Did you intend to suggest Dr. Wring was an impressive scholar with those descriptive words, Phil? In addition, I’ve read Dr. Wring’s dissertation in full.  What would you like to discuss?

Concerning the various staff positions being equipped for other functions than preaching, I am unsure what you are intending. Churches of which I am aware which are multi-staff led are single elder led. I do not see your point

Last, sure I’m thinking of "’pastor’ strictly in the modern sense” (though not necessarily one who attends seminary). But I am not divorcing it from what I believe Scripture to teach on the subject, Phil. Why would you think I would be?  And, I think you’ve pretty much established what many of us suggest—a third office is created—lay elders.  What’s entirely confusing to me is, when it’s pointed out that the model you embrace is similar if not identical to classic presbyterianism’s emphasis on teaching elders/ruling elders (which are invariably lay elders), denial always appears.

Thanks for the chat.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Ben Simpson]

Peter, I understand that you have bigger fish to fry than me, but I addressed precisely in my earlier comment the conclusion you keep trying to interject that the elder-led model in Baptist congregationalism is a three-office model.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/05/elder-rule-on-the-rise-in-the-southern-baptist-convention-part-ii-by-peter-lumpkins.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e2015432681e69970c#comment-6a00d83451a37369e2015432681e69970c

It is NOT a three-officer model. To say so is to misunderstand the model and verges on dishonesty.

My questions were three:
1) Would you agree that the New Testament terms "elder," "overseer," and "pastor" all speak of the same church office?

2) Would you agree that the most prominent biblical term for this office is "elder"?

3) Are you equating "pastor" to the elder who is vocationally supported by the church?

Also, Jeremy makes an excellent point when he testifies about the form of goverment at Bellevue BC under Adrian Rogers (I'm assuming that's the mega-church he's alluding to in Memphis). Dever and CHBC are far more congregational than Rogers and BBC were. Since you are such the champion for congregationalism, what do you say to that?

[Jeremy Vanatta]

Peter,
Thank you for your response. As is always wise in making bold theological/academic assessments, we must go to the sources. It is one thing to hear from someone who has heard from someone that Dever is a pseudo-Baptist, but it is another to read him yourself. Since you are convinced he is what you think he is, then I advise that you demonstrate this in specifics from his writings rather than the writings of others.

Finally, what is your view on large Baptist churches that have only one regular meeting a year? How is that more Baptistically acceptable than what CHBC is doing?

Yours in Christ,
Jeremy

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

Sorry.  I wasn’t trying to avoid you nor was I preparing other “bigger fish” ;^). Instead you kinda fell thru the cracks, that’s all. I appreciate your questions.

First, yes, elder = overseer = pastor in the NT. Second, if you mean by “prominent” the number of times the linguistic triplets are individually used in the NT, then yes, elder is the most “prominent” biblical term. Third, I am equating “pastor” to “elder” in my summations.  That is, to employ the terms the way the Bible employs the terms, it seems to me one could just as well speak of a plurality of pastors or a plurality of pastor-teachers, or a plurality of bishops as one could speak of a plurality of elders.

Nor am I being dishonest in my approach, and I regret you suggest such, Ben.  Can we not disagree without bringing up moral implications? This really gets frustrating to me. To bring dishonesty to the table undeniably connects to personal integrity. At least that’s how I see it.

Finally, from my perspective, it remains all but certain a third officer in church polity is introduced by the template both Dever and Newton embrace. Their not conceding such—nor you for that matter—does not lesson the tension their template places on congregationalism. Nor am I prepared to make a public judgment on whether BBC is/was less congregational than CHBC. And to dub me a “champion for congregationalism” may be the kindest description of me ever written. Thank you! ;^)

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Jeremy,

You write, “it is one thing to hear from someone who has heard from someone…” Excuse me?  I cited a doctoral dissertation, Jeremy.  Are you equating employing scholarly secondary sources with hearsay? If not, it certainly sounds as if you are. Nor have I been as “bold” in being “convinced” Dever is a “pseudo-Baptist” as you suggest.  And just where have I implied Dr. Dever is a “pseudo-Baptist”?  That’s a new one on me.  And as for my boldness, I conceded to one commenter,

“…I'm only beginning to understand Mark Dever's position as I've never followed his ministry or writings consistently. Hence, I'm at a definite disadvantage to speak confidently on his full position. I do know that many of those associated with 9Marks such as Phil Newton (whose book I have read and continue to digest) mean by "elder-led" much more than what we normally mean… However, whether Dever is fully where Newton is, I'm unprepared to say so right now…(//link).

Hence, because 9Marks promotes what may legitimately be dubbed an elder-ruled plurality by at least some of their major contributors, neither Dever nor 9Marks escapes responsibility for their influence.

Finally, my view is that one large regular meeting a year is probably too few times. And, my reservations with any elder plurality focused polity is the degree of delegation given to the elders as a board to represent the congregation in decision-making for the church.

With that, I am…

Peter  
 

[Mark]

Peter,

Could you explain what you mean when you write about biblical church offices? For example, are you defining them by their function and/or title? Also, would you say that the function of those offices should only be performed by those holding said office?

Would you have any trouble accepting, as congregationalism, Dever and CHBC if they moved to fully employed elders so that no more lay elders existed at CHBC yet they continued their congregational style of government continued as it is today?

[Mark]

Also, it seems that the term "presbygational" dates back to the 1801 Plan of Union. This was an agreement between the Presbyterian churches and the Congregationalist churches to accept one another and work together even to the point of sharing ministers.

[peter lumpkins]

 

Mark,

I mean what I think the NT means—elders = bishops = pastors. And these men have identical “job” descriptions in the NT. As for defining them by their function and/or title, it would be both. But the “office” is subsidiary to the “role” the men have in the church. And, while obviously some pastoral functions are performed by men in the church who are not pastors—e.g. some preachers are not pastors—all pastors are expected to be gifted in those ways/roles in which the NT demands of all elders (1 pet 5; Eph 4; 1 Tim 3, etc). So far as your question about CHBC goes, Mark, I’m hesitant to comment much on them. I’ve not sufficiently examined their covenantal documents. I’m also interested in the backdrop of Presbyterian “elder rule” as the inspiration for the ‘council of elders’/’board of elders’ focus among Baptists. And, I have no idea how far back the term “presbygational” goes since it makes little difference so far as I can tell to the argument either I or Robert Wring made.

Thanks.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Jeremy Vanatta]

Peter,
I apologize if I offended you brother, that was not my intention. On the dissertation, I in no way meant to say that citing a doctoral dissertation as a secondary source is "hearsay." But given your prolific writing on the blogs, I believe that the strong cases that you are making for your view need to be backed up with your own personal reading of Dever. That's not an academic assessment, but simply my opinion. I'll leave aside my concerns that Bob's dissertation is being considered "the" authority on the subject of elders in the SBC. This is especially true since I am like you with Dever, I haven't read all of Bob's material (does it count for anything that he and I discussed his dissertaion on a few occasions in the campus bookstore at MABTS?).

Regarding the pseudo-Baptist comment, I guess I'm confused. Do you call Dever a "pres-ba-gationalist" or is this something that others you have read are saying? I simply changed the term to "psuedo-Baptist," because in my view, this is the logical end of calling him a "pres-ba-gationalist." Either Dever is a Baptist or he is not. I believe he is a fellow Baptist brother. How about you? If you agree, then let's call him a Baptist. I guess my problem with some is that they are calling Dever and Newton elder-rule proponents when Dever and Newton are saying that they are indeed elder-led, congregationalists. So, they are either ignorant, dishonest, or telling us the truth. I'm going with the latter.

Finally, I concede that you have conceded not to be bold nor confident in your remarks on Dever. My apologies there.

Sola Gratia,
Jeremy

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

I'm glad we agree that elder, overseer, and pastor all speak of the same office and that "elder" is the most biblically prominent term of the three. Furthermore, I'm also glad that you concede that when you use the term "pastor," you simply have "elder" in mind. In other words, you are not making a differentiation between those who are vocational and those who are not.

Now, given your answers to my questions, I don't see how you are arriving at the conclusion that plural-elder-led Baptist congregationalism is a 3-office model. You have admittedly agreed to two: elders/overseers/pastors and deacons. Yes, the elders in most plural-elder-led Baptist congregational situations are a mixture of vocational and nonvocational pastors, but they are all still nonetheless pastors of equal status. They all meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. They have all been ordained to the same office. They all have the same responsibilites to feed, protect, and lead the flock. The only difference is that some are set aside by the congregation for vocational ministry. That is one office, my friend.

Would you agree? If not, please help me understand why by making your case that it's a 3-office model.

We can certainly agree to disagree about the validity of the plural-elder-led model in Baptist congregationalism, but we cannot agree to disagree that's it's 2 or 3 offices. Be single-elder-led if you want, but don't mislabel the other position.

You seem to love congregationalism, as do Dever, Newton, and I. One of the reasons we're all Southern Baptist is precisely because we love congregationalism. So, may we stand together against true elder-ruled polity and 3-office polity, and may we applaud elder-led polity, whether its singular or plural!

[peter lumpkins]

Jeremy,

No offense here, brother. But the phrase you employed—“hear[ing] from someone who has heard from someone”—surely bore the marks of hearsay. So, I’m glad you did not intend the implication.

As for the “strong case” I’m making for my view, of the three recent posts I’ve composed on this topic, actually the only firm conclusion I’ve offered concerned Acts29 where I asserted strongly Acts29 stands as the perfect example of a model which employs the term “elder-led” when, in fact, it remains undeniably “elder-ruled” about which they speak.  The other two posts were, in very large part, selections from Robert Wring’s essay on the subject. And, while I did make some concluding remarks at the end on part II, I by no means presented such as my definitive case for single-elder, congregationalism.

Nor did I position him as “the” authority on the subject, Jeremy.  Goodness, brother, just because I selected his essay and quoted from his dissertation does not make him either in my mind or my writings “the” authority. And, I appreciate your not dissing his dissertation without also engaging his ideas. As for your discussions with him at the campus bookstore, I don’t know why it would be a priori irrelevant. On the other hand, if your conversations were with him before and not after his project was complete, such might make a different in what he ended up writing in his work. The fact is, I personally asked Dr. Wring if his views had tempered somewhat since 2005 when he defended his dissertation at MABTS. “No” he indicated. Instead, his view was more “solidified” now than before.

Though “pres-by-gationaI” is not my word but another’s, I think you nonetheless are confused about the intention of it and the meaning of “pseudo-Baptist.” One could be wrong on church polity and remain a Baptist nevertheless, could one not? “Pre-by-gational” was employed to colorfully describe those who embrace a hybrid understanding of congregationalism which is wed to a form of elder-rule leadership (i.e. Presbyterianism). On the other hand, “pseudo-Baptist” literally means “false Baptist.”

I have no qualms in your accepting both Newton and Dever are telling us the truth. I concur with a slight addition: Dever and Newton are telling us the truth as they see it.

Thanks for the chat. Grace…

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

Thanks. here’s how. You write, “Yes, the elders in most plural-elder-led Baptist congregational situations are a mixture of vocational and nonvocational pastors, but they are all still nonetheless pastors of equal status.” Well, no they are not. For example, those who are pastor-teachers in the churches about which I am aware are required to have sophisticated credentials to perform their ministry, Ben. And do you think for a split second Mark Dever is on a level playing field with the other elders? He most certainly is not. But even if he were, what you have then for all practical purposes, Ben, is an official board which has no evidence in the NT of its existence.

Nor are you describing an eldership where all are considered pastor-teachers, all publicly preach the gospel, all have a divine call to be pastor-teacher, where all are equal. What you call vocational and nonvocational we routinely call ministers and laity, etc. But what I hear you suggesting is, any man in the congregation “qualified” can be an elder. Whatever happened to the call of God on one’s life, a call to be a pastor in God’s church?

Hence, what one ends up having is a) a pastor-teacher who is also an elder; b) a group of elders who are not necessarily pastor-teachers nor even necessarily sense a divine call to pastor God’s church but who nonetheless “rule” God’s church; c) and finally deacons who clean commodes (I’m being facetious of course). On any count, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

Now, let me be clear:  from my perspective I am definitively not mislabeling the other position. Hence, I do not need a sermonette about it, if I may be candid.  I gave my reasoning. And, whether it is persuasive to you or anyone else, it very much is persuasive to me. So, I’ll continue to offer objections based on the reasoning I bring to the table.

Thanks for the good chat. Grace...

With that, I am…

Peter  

[Jeremy Vanatta]

Peter,
No offense taken. I agree with you that my wording was not precise, but my point remains the same: let's hear Dever on Dever.

At least we do agree on this: Bob's dissertation is not "the" authority on the subject, something I can say confidently after having read bits and pieces of it a few years after its completion. That's not to say it is bad, just not "the" authority.

Regarding the "pres-by-gational" issue, I freely admitted that I may have been confused about the term, that's why I asked for clarification. You're clarification was exactly what I thought was meant by the term

And thank you for defining "pseudo-Baptists" for those reading your blog, so that they will know what I meant by it. I understand that "pseudo-Baptist" does not equal "pres-by-gational." I'm saying that casting out a term like "pres-by-gational" tends toward shunning such brothers in Christ as "lesser Baptists" and the possibility that before you know it they will be considered "false Baptists" or "no Baptists" at all. I pray that it doesn't come to that.

But I'm glad to hear that you would consider Dever a Baptist brother, at least I think that is the implication of your statement.
Thanks for the dialogue. I'll leave you alone now.

Grace to You,
Jeremy

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

It's good to finally see the reasoning behind your conclusion. However, I think it's unfortunate, Peter. Show me sophisticated credentials in the Scripture. Surely, they are in our tradition, but we strive to be biblicists, not traditionalists. All I see is that a man has studied to show himself approved and that the other elders lay hands upon him as a symbol of approval. The office of elder/overseer/pastor is not to be filled with only professionals, elites, and aristocrats.

I'm sorry that you seem to think so lowly of the men in your congregation who meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1. Perhaps you don't have any, and that I believe is the case in many smaller congregations. If that's the case, you should be the only elder but looking to raise up other elders around you. However, I'm guessing that you have men in your congregation who meet the qualifications and desire to do the things a pastor is called to do, minus preaching from the pulpit and being a vocational ministry (neither of which are biblical requirements for elders/overseers/pastors).

I'm sure you are familiar with 1 Timothy 3. One of the qualifications is there is that the elder/overseer/pastor be "able to teach." I think that you are confusing "teach" with the more modern idea of preaching. Not all elders/overseers/pastors are called to be preachers. That takes a certainly skill-set that God doesn't give to every man. However, every one of this must be able to teach the Bible and desire to teach the Bible.

Obviously, not everybody who meets these qualifications should be ordained to the office, but those who do and desire to be an elder/overseer/pastor and then are approved by the congregation should be. Peter, you said, "a group of elders who are not necessarily pastor-teachers nor even necessarily sense a divine call to pastor God’s church but who nonetheless “rule” God’s church." First, if they are not pastor-teachers, then they cannot be elders. Second, if If they aren't called by God and desire the office, then they shouldn't be an elder either.

Peter, you have 3-offices set up in your mind, but that's now how plural-elder-led Baptist congregationalism is. You really ought to attend one of 9Marks' "Weekenders." I've not been, but I know many who have and say that it was so helpful in understanding plural-elder-led Baptist congregationalism. Hope you'll do so and read Dever!

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

Your words are embolden:

“It's good to finally see the reasoning behind your conclusion. However, I think it's unfortunate, Peter. Show me sophisticated credentials in the Scripture. Surely, they are in our tradition, but we strive to be biblicists, not traditionalists. All I see is that a man has studied to show himself approved and that the other elders lay hands upon him as a symbol of approval. The office of elder/overseer/pastor is not to be filled with only professionals, elites, and aristocrats.” Look Ben, I’m not going to continue exchanging if the exchange produces little to no understanding. I don’t have time, frankly. I’ll be glad to spell out precisely what I meant by my assertion concerning “sophisticated credentials” when you can clearly demonstrate the words I employed necessarily implied your ridiculous conclusion that reduces my proposition to the absurd position that the office of elder not only is to be filled exclusively with “professionals, elites, and aristocrats,” but that I also implied I “think so lowly of the men in [my] congregation.” Unless you can show how my words imply this thorough-going nonsense, drop the point. Caricatures are easily asserted but more difficult to demonstrate. And, to study approvingly and be ordained may be “all you see” to becoming an elder, but I’m afraid your simplistic notion is hardly biblically defensible as you later on obviously imply.

“I'm guessing that you have men in your congregation who meet the qualifications and desire to do the things a pastor is called to do, minus preaching from the pulpit and being a vocational ministry (neither of which are biblical requirements for elders/overseers/pastors)… . …you are confusing "teach" with the more modern idea of preaching. Not all elders/overseers/pastors are called to be preachers. That takes a certainly skill-set that God doesn't give to every man. However, every one of this must be able to teach the Bible and desire to teach the Bible. The NT makes no distinction among elders, Ben. None.  We started this exchange with your question about elder, pastor, and bishop being synonymous. Virtually all scholars admit such. Hence, all elders are pastor-teachers, and all pastor-teachers are elders.  Furthermore, there is no such thing in the NT as a non-preaching elder. However, while all elders are preachers, not all preachers are elders. For example, evangelists preach but are not necessarily considered elders. You’ve just pulled a rabbit out of the hat when you explicitly make room for a non-preaching elder. That’s the very “third office” about which those like myself are speaking about.

So, public preaching is a “modern idea”? You really don’t mean that as you stated it, do you Ben? Nor do I think you can make a reasonably clear case that what the Scripture means by pastor-teaching does not necessarily include public proclamation (i.e. preaching). The two can be distinguished but not separated. In short, all pastor-teachers are preachers, but not all preachers are pastor-teachers. Hence, all overseers are called to be pastor-teachers. And, since pastor-teaching necessarily includes public proclamation, all overseers are also public preachers. In fact, to deny such is precisely the idea presbyterianism puts forth when speaking of the “biblical” distinction between “teaching” elders and “lay” elders. What you appear to be saying reduces to a similar supposition. In fact, Presbyterianism is nicely at home with your exact statement: “Not all elders/overseers/pastors are called to be preachers [teachers]. That takes a certainly [sic] skill-set that God doesn't give to every man.” The sole difference between your assertion and the distinction Presbyterians make between “teaching” and “ruling” elders (i.e. ‘lay’ elders)  is, Presbyterianism correctly avoids the false separation you make between preaching and teaching. Add to this your assertion about “non-vocational” elders (i.e. ‘lay’ elders), and what is one supposed to conclude? Do you not see how some make the connection to Presbyterianism in this view?

Obviously, not everybody who meets these qualifications should be ordained to the office, but those who do and desire to be an elder/overseer/pastor and then are approved by the congregation should be.” As long as they are called to pastor God’s people, meet the qualifications, and have a charge, then I agree.

“you have 3-offices set up in your mind, but that's now ]sic] how plural-elder-led Baptist congregationalism is.” To the contrary, Ben, your false dichotomy between preaching elders and non-preaching elders created the very office you deny exists. Unless you can demonstrate from Scripture the clear separation of elder-teaching from elder-preaching you are stuck with two different kinds of elders: a) pastor-teachers who preach; and, b) pastor-teachers who do not preach. For my part to even suggest not all pastor-teachers preach is fundamentally absurd on its face. Imagine a church setting up a search committee who was instructed to find the church a pastor-teacher but who was not also expected to preach.

Nor will it assist to suggest “but he will need to have the gift of preaching to be our pastor-teacher.” Won’t do it, brother. You’ve already established that it is not necessary for pastor-teachers to be able to preach. Hence, theoretically, an elder body, apparently in your view, appears to not necessarily require a preacher at all. He is an option. On the other hand, if the preacher is not an option, then you are adding requirements to be an elder/pastor/overseer which you yourself deny the Bible demands. It seems to me that’s the dilemma you’ve placed yourself in by separating elder-teaching from elder-preaching.

“You really ought to attend one of 9Marks' "Weekenders." I've not been, but I know many who have and say that it was so helpful in understanding plural-elder-led Baptist congregationalism.”  Well, if you’ve not been I do not see how you can offer me such glowing reviews about it nor particularly why you’re confident I would benefit since you know little to nothing about me. Nor am I averse to reading Dever which I will eventually get around to reading thoroughly. But my short series has not focused exclusively on Dever but on what Dever & 9Marks among other influences have spawned—an unhealthy view of ‘elder-rule’ in SBC churches.

With that, I am…

Peter

 

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

I've enjoyed dialoging with you over this issue. I pray that I and the others have provided balance to you for the record. I appreciate you bringing up this important topic.

Sorry, for all the typos in my last comment. I quickly did it and then ran to do some ministry. Three short comments, and I hope to leave the discussion alone.

First, churches set up search committees all the time to find non-preaching pastors. Church staffs are full of them. These men are pastors/elders/overseers, who in most instances have teaching responsibilities, but they are not preachers, as in the one who stands in the pulpit every Sunday delivering a message from God's Word. So, my point is not so "fundamentally absurd on its face."

Furthermore, there is certainly a difference between preaching and teaching. It's demonstrated in my church every Sunday, and I assume the same is true for yours. Therefore, it's perfectly plausible for there to be non-preaching elders/overseers/pastors. Again, church staffs are full of them. All elders/overseers/pastors must be able to teach, but all do not have to be able to preach. Certainly, at least one of them must be able to preach, but not all of them.

Second, concerning the "Weekenders," I was simply passing on to you somebody else's opinion of Dever's ministry as you did in your original post from Wring. The logic with which you responded to me on this point discounts the very purpose of your article.

Third, these men you cited in the SBC are not advocating "elder-rule." I'm not as sure about the men you cited outside of the SBC. Elder-rule would exclude congregationalalism and have the final authority resting in the elders. That is simply not the case in these SBC situations. These men are firmly congregational and have the final authority resting in the congregation. That's why they are "elder-led" and not "elder-ruled." There's a major difference.

Peter, I pray that we've not wasted our time here and have sharpened each other. If not, I pray then we'll sharpen others who read the comments. I appreciate how you are willing to allow those who challenge you to comment unlike other blogs. Thanks for the discussion!

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

Thanks.  No problem about the typos.  We all doo itd, doe we nut? :^)

Second, I’m glad you’ve appreciated the topic and attempted to offer counter-views to my own.

Third, while you are correct “churches set up search committees all the time” in order to find staffers who do not preach, concluding “Church staffs are full of them” you are incorrect in thinking such searches have anything to contribute to the discussion we are having. You are describing what we normally call a “staff-led” church which has a single Senior Pastor not an “elder-led” church with elders-boards which may have staffers who are elders but not necessarily so, and surely not exclusively so. Elder-led churches invariably have “lay-elders,” “rulling elders” (Presbyterianism), or what you prefer, “non-vocational” elders. Hence, your point simply mixes categories and for that reason cannot assist us in understanding elder plurality led (‘ruled’) vs. single elder led (‘ruled’). Now, we’re back to my suggestion that supposing not all pastor-teachers preach remains “fundamentally absurd on its face.”

Once again, consider: imagine an elder-led (‘ruled’) church setting up a search committee who was instructed to find the church a pastor-teacher but who was not also expected to preach. As an example, take Mark Dever’s church. Suppose he leaves.  The elder-board is responsible for filling the pulpit. They require a preacher but not necessarily a pastor-teacher since they already have an entire elder-board filled with pastor-teachers. Theoretically, then, they could get a simple, full-time preacher. Hence, the main preacher at CHBC would be on staff as a preacher but he need not be a pastor-teacher/elder/bishop. In fact, he couldn’t even sit in on the elder board meeting because he is not an elder (pastor-teacher); he is a preacher. Even more, he would not even need to meet the standard qualifications for the elder-board. Why?  Because in your view, all elders are pastor-teachers, but not all preachers are elders. Is this not implied in your position, Ben? It seems it is to me. So, I think your position needs a lot more careful thought.

Fourth, whatever happens in your church or mine on Sunday morning is not the standard, remember?  Hence, I suggest we allow the NT as much as we possibly can to set the standard for us. And, in the NT, we find no false separation between preaching and teaching. While a distinction exists, the two cannot be separated either logically or biblically. I’ve shown the absurdity of logically separating the two above. As for the inability of separating the two Scripturally, consider Acts 6 and what many scholars believe to be the calling out of the first deacons. Phil Newton writes in his book on Elders in Congregational Life, “we see the emergence of what some have termed ‘deacon prototypes’ in ‘The Seven’ in Acts 6, and even a prototype of the ministry of the elders in ‘The Twelve’…” (p.46). Supposing Newton is correct, observe closely the occasion Luke records for this momentous event: “And the twelve [i.e. the "elder prototype"] summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we [i.e. the "elder prototype"] should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Acts 6:2, ESV). This is at the beginning of the organized church. Note also Timothy’s apostolic command at the end of the Apostle’s era: 

“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths (2 Tim 4:1-4, ESV)

Here the Apostle undeniably connects “preaching” the Word with both "sound teaching" and teachers, not to mention that both "preaching" the Word and "teaching" sound doctrine alike constitute a single venue for "listening to the truth."  

In addition, note well how the English Standard Version translates 2 Tim 5:17: “ Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching,” more explicit connection between the preached Word and the taught Word which makes it all but impossible to separate the two, Ben.

On the other hand, if you separate the two like you apparently are set on doing, rather than distinguish the two which fits well both sober reason and biblical data, you are, in effect, setting up two different roles for elders the NT knows nothing of: elders who preach the Word and elders who don’t. Again, this makes three offices in church leadership polity: 1) elder/pastor-teachers/overseers who preach according to apostolic command 2) elders/pastor-teachers/overseers who do not preach against apostolic command 3) deacons.

Fifth, you assert, “The logic with which you responded to me on this point discounts the very purpose of your article.” And, that would be what exactly, Ben? I queried whether a) you were suitable to give advice on a conference you admit upfront you’ve never attended, as if it would do me some good when you know little to nothing about me b) I said this series of articles was not focused exclusively on Dever but on what Dever & 9Marks among other influences have spawned. How this is supposed to discount anything I’ve written thus far escapes me. Sorry.

Sixth, given the difficulties of your position (the way I understand them) as I pointed out above—difficulties which you failed to address--I’m afraid taking your summation that “the case in these SBC situations” is that the churches are “elder-led” not “elder-ruled” cannot stand at face value, Ben. You’ve assumed much and asserted much but demonstrated little, so far as I am concerned, to question whether Dr. Robert Wring’s dissertation has made a very strong case against the so-called “pres-by-gationalism” in the churches he studied.

Thanks again for the chat.

With that, I am…

Peter