BAPTIST
ELDERSHIP
Let us look at the Baptist
system of authority. Historically Baptists have been congregational. They have
resisted both the idea of a Presbytery past the local church and putting the
final authority of the local church in the office of eldership. A Baptist
congregation may have elders as long as the elders are subject to the rule of
the congregation. The pastor and elders function as leaders of the
congregation, and as such, their views (rightly so) have great influence. But ultimately,
the congregation can choose whether or not to accept the recommendations of the
pastor and elders. It is at this point that some present-day Baptists (mostly
Reformed Baptists) have departed from both the Bible and their Baptist
forefathers. They have adopted the Presbyterian view of eldership and put the
authority of the church in the hands of the eldership, thereby rejecting
congregational rule. However, they have also rejected the idea of a Presbytery,
or any authority, beyond the local church. This is a hybrid view of authority of
recent origin.
Here is the problem in this
hybrid system: (1) If the authority of a local church is in the eldership and
not the congregation (Presbyterian eldership), and (2) if there is no authority
past the local congregation (Baptist Congregationalism), then (3) to whom can
an appeal be made when an elder acts like I a tyrant? In such a situation, the
eldership is a law unto itself with no accountability to anyone but its own
conscience! In such a system, if several families come to the pastor with a sincere
concern and he either refuses to listen or is not convinced that they are
correct, those individuals are not allowed to even talk to another person after
they leave his office. To do so is to be "guilty of rebellion against
God's duly authorized leadership." Such a system is nothing but Roman
popery. There is no check and balance because the eldership is ultimately
responsible to no one but itself. A tyrant can have a field day and be
untouchable in such a system.
First, there is the
dictator. One man alone is the Pope, general, president, or whatever. That
person's word is law on the basis of the strength and authority of his
"office." He is the undisputed, "duly authorized" leader.
The individual's authority is not related to his ability or his character. He
controls either by raw power (guns, money, fear, etc.) or by masterful
manipulation of other people.
The authority is always in
the office and has little or nothing to do with the individual. A general who
is an idiot has as much authority as a genius. The Pope or pastor has the full
"authority of his office" regardless of whether he is capable or not.
Rome is not the only religious organization with egg on its face because of
either stupidity or tyranny being "clothed with Divine authority." Shepherding
God's Flock gives ample proof that this tragic fact still exists today.
There are never any checks or balances over leadership in this system. The "God-ordained" individual is "duly authorized" by God and is answerable to no one else. The pastor is the Bishop of your soul and is accountable to God for your well-being. The
more "sincere" the
leader is in his "duty," the more tyrannical he is likely to become.
He not only has the "authority," but he also has the "awesome
responsibility to God" to "guide" (control) your life. Of
course, it is always for "your own good." The "lay" people
are duty bound to obey God's "duly authorized authority" even if
he is wrong, and God will "reward your obedience". We
rejoice to see the authors of Shepherding God 's Hock publicly repudiate this
horrible distortion of God's Word.
The second form of authority is the exact opposite
of the dictator. It is pure and total democracy. It will either wind up in
"mob rule" and destroy itself or it will get so sick of anarchy that
it will "elect" a dictator. Someone has jokingly tried to use
Acts 19:32 to prove that the early church must have been independent Baptist
because this passage portrays a Baptist business meeting. It many cases it
would not be too far from the truth. In the system of total democracy no one is
supposed to have any "authority." No one is "officially"
functioning as a leader. The church is organized as a giant committee and
settles everything around a table (preferably round). Everyone has equal
authority. There is no "one man ministry" nor is there any
"office" that has "authority." All of the attempts that I
have ever seen to carry out this idea have wound up with clearly recognized
"unofficial" Popes and a rigid but "unofficial" pecking
order. The Plymouth Brethren "denomination" is a classic illustration
of this system.
Our concern should not be with who does what, but
rather, "Is everything that is necessary being taken care of in a
satisfactory manner." Are we concerned that the work of God actually
gets done or that only duly authorized elitists be allowed to do the work. In
my mind, this is what plurality of leadership and the priesthood of all
believers is all about. It is utilizing the gifts of all God's people to minister
to as much of Christ's whole Church as is possible.
We must not confuse "responsibility" with "authority" or raw power. The NT Scriptures do not speak about "office and authority." They speak of people, gifts, and responsibility. Eldership is not an "office" as much as it is a function, just as the church is more a spiritual organism than it is a physical institution. The church has distinct institutional functions, just as a pastor has "official duties." However, when the emphasis is placed first on the "institution" and the "office," we are starting at the wrong end. A leader that continually reminds us that he has "authority" is really proving that he has no God-given authority at all. His constant exhortations to "submit to God's duly authorized authority" proves that he is not a leader of Christ's sheep, but a thief who is attempting to drive the sheep away from Christ and draw them unto himself.
A true leader has several clear marks. First, he has followers. Anyone who thinks he is a leader need only turn around and see if anyone is there. If no one is following, then the person is not a leader. However, that is not enough for the Christian. All leaders do read us in the same direction or to the same place. The test of a true Christian leader is whether he is first a follower himself and if he is following the right Person. A Christian leader can only say, "Follow me, as I follow Christ. " We dare not say, "Do this because I have authority to make you do it." We must say, "Do this because your Lord has commanded you." In one sense, we have no followers of ourselves. We are all followers of the Lamb. Leaders are merely pilgrim's helping other pilgrims following the same Lord.
Authority "divinely vested" in either a man or an institution is Romanism, and it will always ultimately lead to the same totalitarian attitude expressed in that system A duly authorized man will assume the right to control both the church as a whole and the conscience of every individual. I say without hesitation that I am an avowed opponent of
Papal authoritarian institutionalism regardless of whether it wears a Roman, Presbyterian, Baptist, Plymouth Brethren or any other robe. It is this error that produces tyrants for leaders and narrow minded bigots as disciples. It has destroyed some good men when every other weapon of Satan had failed.
I had a philosophy teacher who said, "A
philosopher is a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat, that is
not there." In our present discussion, I believe "the black cat that
isn't there" in the Scripture is the dear role model of the physical
organization that men call the true New Testament Church when referring to a
local assembly (their own) of believers. There just is no such animal in the
New Testament Scriptures. The institutionalist is wholeheartedly convinced that
he has found what is not there.
I have added a little to that philosophy teacher's
bit of wisdom. I have found that the most narrow minded separatists are the
people who sincerely believe that they actually have caught the cat that is
not there. They really believe that their particular church is in all points
like the one "true N. T. role model church established by Christ" and
found in the New Testament Scriptures! These people usually accuse all who
disagree with them of rejecting the authority of the Word of God and following
"pragmatism and expediency." Sometimes we "rebels" are
granted the license of pure ignorance or stupidity. However, the usual charge
is deliberate unbelief in "God's dearly revealed truth."
Every duty enjoined on a believer in the New Testament Scriptures is always based on the fact that he is joined to Christ and therefore joined to every other believer. No one is urged to right behavior toward another believer because they both "joined the same local church." The exhortation is always because both are members of the "Body of Christ."
A NEW THING IN THE LAND
A new thing has occurred in
the land today. We can expect that Rome will act like Rome whenever she is in
total control. If Presbyterism became the state religion, we have no doubt, nor
would we be surprised, to see them putting Baptists in jail for the horrible
sin of immersing a believer who had been sprinkled as a child in the state
church. They would have to do that in order to be consistent with their concept
of church and state just as their forefathers had to do the same thing when
they had the civil power to do so. We would expect them to carry out the
logical implications of their theological convictions. What is amazing today is
finding the same attitude among many Baptists! This is only possible because
these Baptists have adopted a Presbyterian view of the Scripture and authority.
Like Thornwell, these Baptist are convinced they have caught the cat that isn't
there. They really believe, like ThomwelL that their system is the only divinely
authorized one found in Scripture.
It is far more dangerous for a Baptist to take this view than it is for a Presbyterian. At least the Presbyterian has a Presbytery to put some checks on a pastor who mistakenly believes that he has been duly authorized by God to rule over the conscience of others. However, when Baptists take this institutional view of the church and elder authority, the Elder (pastor) literally becomes an untouchable pope. When the authority of the church is in the eldership and not the congregation, and there is no authority past the local congregation, the system has literally created a pope responsible to no human authority. Even where there is a plurality of elders, which is not always the case, the other elders usually have been hand picked by the pastor. Obedience to God becomes equal to obedience to the church as God's appointed authority, and obedience to the church is in reality obedience to the elder when the authority is believed to be in the eldership.
We could not have such a "true N. T. church" today without someone having the same authority as that possessed by the Apostles. Some Baptists, especially some Reformed Baptists, have actually come awfully close to practicing this in their view of eldership but none (that I know of) have claimed Apostleship." One Reformed Baptist preacher has convinced himself, and some zealots, that he is the "modem day Nehemiah" raised up by God to purify the twentieth century church.
We
could not have a "true N. T. church" without having the Apostolic
gifts of the Spirit in operation since it was these gifts that created and
operated the early church. Do we have "prophets" giving us special
messages from God today? I agree that some zealots make this claim, but we all
know better.
We could not have a "true N. T. church" unless all of the true believers in our area were part of it and there were no other kinds of churches around. If Paul wrote a letter to the "Church in Any Town," I verily believe that some deluded souls actually believe the mailman would bring the letter directly to their pastor. They literally believe they are the only "duly authorized" church in town. Is a Presbyterian church just as "duly authorized" by God as a Reformed Baptist Church? The moment you say "yes", then you must either admit that there is no clear role model for the institutional church or else God has "duly authorized" some people to practice error.
There are many conscientious Christians in rigid, institutional congregations that are sick of the "we four/no more" mentality that has destroyed any meaningful fellowship with other believers because "These people are not really in our camp." These Christians are tired of seeing the Arminians get all the converts while their own local church efforts consists of witnessing Calvinism and "true church" doctrine to these "immature and untaught victims of easy believism." I believe I speak to many hearts that long to see sinners saved and changed in their own assembly, instead of wistfully seeing it happen other places - and bravely trying, in vain, to justify why it is not happening in their own assembly. Is your heart and conscience asking the following question:
"If
our church has the most truth and the only true biblical authority, why doesn't
God use us to save His true sheep instead of using those people that we are
constantly opposing and criticizing?"
Maybe the answer to that question is far more obvious that many of us have been willing to admit. Maybe the people and churches that have been criticized for not preaching "the true gospel" have at least faithfully preached the gospel as they understood it. Is it not a fact that these people preach the Lord Jesus Christ Himself as the only way to be saved, and do they not also urge sinners to flee to Him for salvation? Must we not also admit that many of our "true N. T. churches" have made the establishing of "the one true institutional church" to be the primary goal of their preaching and practice? And is it not also tragically true that these same "true" churches have miserably failed to (1) preach the gospel to the sinners in their immediate area, or (2) heal and help the wounded sheep under their own care?
(My
Resinger has a long end useful study of three important texts that are badly
misused by too many Baptists to gain power that God never gave. They are Acts
8: 1, 4 & 5; Acts 13: 1-4 and Acts 15:40. In this ignorant or vicious
misinterpretation of these Scriptures we have glaring samples of how readily
Christians can be induced to use up for imperfect men and women powers and
rights that belong only to the Members of the eternal Godhead. J.R.B.)
Let me make a few general remarks about the three basic proof texts from Acts before looking at the actual texts themselves. These passages must be seen in the setting of the Apostolic era. This was the era when the Spirit of God worked immediately through apostles and the gifts of the Spirit. We do not or minister in the Apostolic era The Landmark presupposition, if it is consistent when it approaches A can easily lead us into one of two grievous errors:
(1) We will have no real
defense against the Charismatic when he uses Acts as the "textbook"
for running the church today through the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, or
(2) we must go into a
Landmark Baptist (Roman Catholic) "hierarchy" view of the
"visible" (local) church authority and a "priestcraft" view
of eldership.
One has to have a really jaundiced eye not to see that the Holy Ghost worked "immediately" in t Apostolic era. I make bold to say that the Apostle Paul was personally "directed by the Spirit" and wa "free-lancer" responsible to Christ alone. However, I quickly add that it is impossible for us to opera today as Paul did in the Apostolic era unless we possess the same gifts and same apostolic authority. Needless to say, I think we will all agree that we today have neither apostolic authority nor the apostolic gifts.
Acts must not be the "textbook" on
how to establish churches or church order, and likewise, the gifts and power of
the Holy Spirit as manifested in the life and ministry of the apostles must not
be transferred in toto to the present institutional church and its officers.
I would love to see some Reformed Baptists debate a Landmark Baptist and a
Charismatic at the same time.
Let us look carefully at the actual passages in the
Book of Acts that are used to prove the absolute authority of the local church
in church planting and missions.
The
whole doctrine of "authority" in many local churches (especially
Landmark and Reformed Baptist churches) is built on wrong presuppositions that
have "logically" been pushed to a dangerous / extreme. The biggest
single problem, and the cause of other problems, in many such churches with
which I am personally acquainted, is "the authority of eldership." I
believe it is crippling many churches and is the major factor in most church
splits.12 The problem of which I speak is a direct and necessary
"logical deduction" from the view of church authority discussed in
this article. Such a view will soon exalt the eldership to a place of authority
akin to priestcraft.
UNWANTED BAPTISTS
Below is a list of men who are acknowledged
as great men of God who are identified in the Baptist ranks. Would you want
them as member, pastor, or a missionary?
|
NAME & DATE |
BRIEF DESCRIPTION |
ESCHATOLOGICAL VIEW |
|
Chas Spurgeon 1834-92 |
Soul-winner, Pastor, started 200 churches, pastors college,
orphanages, great writer |
Non-dispensational, premil, one judgment |
|
William Carey 1761-1834 |
"Father of Modem Missions" 41 yrs. in India, translated
Bible in 35 languages |
Amillennialist |
|
John Bunyan 1628-1688 |
Spent 12 yrs. in Bedford jail, wrote "Pilgrims Progress"
"Holy War" etc. |
Amillennialist |
|
Alexander Carson 1776-1884 |
Pastor-writer, great Puritan "Baptism"
"Atonement" etc. |
Amillennialists |
|
John Gill 1697-1771 |
Theologian, pastor, writer, "Body of Divinity"
"Exposition of O.T. & N.T." |
Non-dispensational Pre-mil, one judgment, |
|
A.H. Strong 1836-1921 |
Theologian, writer, Seminary President "Systematic
Theology" etc. |
Postmillennialist |
|
John & Broadus 1827-1895 |
Seminary professor, writer, preacher "Commentary on
Matthew" (great) etc. |
Ammillennialst |
|
Andrew Fuller 1754-1815 |
Pastor, theologia, "Letters on Systematic Divinity," etc. |
Amillennialist |
|
B.H.Caroll 1843-1914 |
Soul-winner, Founder of Southwestern Baptist Seminary (largest in
world) |
Postmillennial |
|
J.M. Pendleton 1811-1891 |
Sscholar, teheologian, apstor, writer, "Church Manual"
"Christian Doctrines" |
Postmillennialist |
|
Arthur W. Pink 1886-1952 |
Pastor, writer, "Gospel of John", "The Sovereignty of
God" "Life of David" etc. |
1st a rabid pre-mil, shifted to amillennial |
|
T.T. Shields 1872-1954 |
Pastor, educator, college president, writer, "Gospel
Witness", etc. (Canada) |
Vague millennialism to ammillennialism |
|
Adoniram Judson 1788-1845 |
Greatly persecuted Missionary to Indiaa then to Burma, |
Amillennialism |
|
Robert Haldane 1764-1842 |
"Commentary on Romans" etc. Dedicated laymen preacher,
writer |
Premillennialist (vague) anti-dispensationalist |