These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
- 1 Timothy 3:14-15 (KJV)
We live in an age when the concept of the church has become something that is too often reduced to a matter of mere preference. Nowhere is this error brought more sharply into focus in many local congregations that in the matter of congregational church government. I am convinced of the biblical basis for this form of church government, which the late Dr. Adrian Rogers has described as “pastor-led, deacon-served, committee-operated, and congregationally approved.” But if the congregation, in the exercise of congregational approval, is relying on mere personal preference rather than the lordship of Christ, the church, the “pillar and ground of the truth,” is placed in extreme jeopardy.
We recently published an essay by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, in which he outlines the challenges we face today to this biblical model of a congregationally governed local church. You can read the entire essay here. Dr. Yarnell highlights three aspects of Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message that relate to democratic congregationalism, describing in detail how scriptural congregationalism is best pictured, discussing what is meant by being “democratic,” and emphasizing the supreme importance of the lordship of Christ in this process.
I am convinced that so many of the difficulties we face in our convention today stem directly from so many churches who practice a flawed ecclesiology. Unless we are willing to examine carefully and apply faithfully the scriptural models for how our churches are to be ordered, we risk unleashing ourselves from the authority and accountability that are part and parcel of the “pillar and ground of the truth.”
I invite readers to use the comment section of this post to discuss the ideas Dr. Yarnell has so eloquently communicated in his essay. May we do so out of a desire to arrive at a more faithful, more biblical view of the church of the living God.
Brother Wes,
Dr. Yarnell wrote; “Thus, it should be remembered by all true Baptists:Christ is the only head and lawgiver of the church; the church itself may legislate nothing new, but must be faithful to execute all that her Lord legislated.”
How would you, or Dr. Yarnell, say that the best way to deal with church members who come only to Sunday AM services and comes to a business meeting only when he/she is aware that something they do not like is going to be presented?
Blessings,
Tim
First off, thumbs up on the Dr. Moore segments. I’m not sure I’m in agreement with him on some of his points, but it was good stuff nonetheless.
Bro. Wes said:
I am convinced that so many of the difficulties we face in our convention today stem directly from so many churches who practice a flawed ecclesiology. Unless we are willing to examine carefully and apply faithfully the scriptural models for how our churches are to be ordered, we risk unleashing ourselves from the authority and accountability that are part and parcel of the “pillar and ground of the truth.”
I’m curious which way you’re going on this. In your view is the problem:
a) Elder-led churches,
b) Elder-ruled churches,
OR
c) Single Pastor / Deacon-ruled churches?
Tim,
In order to stay out of trouble, I’ve emailed you my response. ;-)
Mike,
I have no problem with elder-led churches, as “elder” is essentially synonymous with “pastor” in our current context. Even when there are multiple elders (staff members), I think this view is certainly not outside the biblical model.
As to elder rule, I don’t find this concept clearly articulated in scripture. If anyone was in a position to enforce a ruling on a church, it was Paul, and yet when one needed to be removed from the congregation, he did not simply declare it done, but instructed the church “when you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus” to deliver the man over to Satan.(1 Cor. 5:4-5)
As to “c” in your question, clearly this is a problematic issue, as so many deacons function as de facto ruling elders. While I believe that deacons need to be involved in a meaningful way in every major decision of the church, it is not because they have a scripturally mandated ruling authority, but because they are charged with maintaining the fellowship of the congregation. Their original task was related to the serving of food, but the purpose was to maintain the fellowship by addressing the complaints of the Hellenists. Of course, the fact that the appointment of those original seven “pleased the whole gathering” (Acts 6:5) reinforces my answers on the other two.
Thanks for your questions. If I have left anything unaddressed, perhaps those far more capable than myself will chime in.
I really wish you would have shared your email message! ;)
Shouldn’t we just rename High Attendance Day…
Fire the Preacher Business Meeting Day
Brother Wes,
Thanks for your kind response. I believe yours to be one of the most gracious emails I have received in quite some time. I certainly look forward to more of them in the future.
As to my original question. Would you not agree that as long as we have humans beings saved by Grace we will have human beings not desiring to live under the Lordship of Jesus? I believe that is what Dr. Yarnell was referencing. Certainly we must account that no governmental system is perfect. However the Scripture presents a congregational system. And it is Scriptural to proceed in a congregational method.
Blessings,
Tim
(Okay, third try. The first two did not post. Perhaps your website thinks I’m a spammer?)
Wes,
You gave an awfully big generalization by your statement that leaves the door open for all sorts of misunderstandings:
“I am convinced that so many of the difficulties we face in our convention today stem directly from so many churches who practice a flawed ecclesiology.”
What difficulties in our convention, specifically, do you see as stemming directly from churches who practice a flawed ecclesiology?
Perhaps you intended to address difficulties in our churches rather than in our convention?
Forgive me, but I’m confused by where you were going with the statement.
Is it possible that some, in recent years, desiring to make pastoral ministry a less stressful position have gravitated toward an elder-ruled (plural eldership) structure?
cb
John,
You’re correct in pointing out what was a pretty broad statement from me concerning problems within the convention. Let me attempt to provide an example.
We have had some fairly contentious debates within the convention in recent years on the subject of baptism, and I believe these debates reflect significant confusion of the issue.
If one believes that baptism is given to each and every individual believer to carry out as they see fit, then policies attempting to reflect the historic and biblical Baptist view of the practice will create division.
When one understands, as Baptists historically have, that all of the individual directives contained in the Great Commission (baptizing, teaching, disciple-making) are given to the church, and that they are to be carried out by individuals in the context of a relationship of accountability to a local congregation of believers, that confusion is alleviated.
I’ve talked about baptism, but let me talk about another element of the Great Commission: teaching. I recently had an experience with a local church that was under the sway of a man who is a false and heretical teacher. This man is proud of the fact that he has no connection to a local church, and says his teaching is the result of the Spirit leading him, independent from any other authority.
He is able to continue in error because of that lack of accountability to a local body of believers. If I begin to teach error, it is the responsibility and duty of my local congregation to confront and correct that error.
We must not separate ordinances (commands) of Christ (the Head) from the authority He has placed within the local church (the body), any more than we would contemplate separating our literal head from our literal body.
I hope I’ve addressed your concern. I’m going to be unavailable most of the rest of today, so hopefully others can chime in here.
Brother CB,
Would you expand on your question? I believe I see what you are trying to say. Of course, you have never been one to mince words. That is not what I am asking.
Are you saying that elder-rule has become the pragmatic way to lead the church?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I think some are seeking something even beyond a desire to effectively manage the day to day affairs of the church.
I think (Just my opinion) that an assumed need to be more pragmatic brought about the position of youth minister, etc., but this is more than that.
An illustration may help me explain my question. Years ago (mid 70′s) a fellow student stated he was going to seek a position as a “Teaching Pastor” in an elder-ruled (plural eldership) church because he wanted to be “insulated” from the problems of dealing with the congregation. He said he just wanted to “preach and teach” and “leave the other responsibilities to someone else.”
That is not word for word how he presented himself, but it is the essence of his desire.
cb
Brother CB,
I have to go over to Chapel Hill Hospital to see one of my members tonight. Therefore, I personally will not be able to carry the dialog with you after this statement tonight. I will be back tomorrow. I also will remind you that it is hard on your digestive system to eat pork that is alive. Be careful that you do not cook those Hawgs before you kill them. :>)
Your example is a very applicable one concerning our discussion. Your description of the “teaching elder” as being insulated is much like the Preacher that is called to Preach and does not deal with the administrative portion of the church. I know great men of God that operate from such a position.
Would you say the main difference is seen in the congregation under the Lordship of Jesus Christ being the deciding legislative body, instead of a small group of men?
Blessings,
Tim
Wes,
Looking back at my original post, I see it’s horribly worded. I’m glad you were able to get the gist of what I was wanting to see clarified.
From your response, I’m still left wondering how ecclesiology is at the root of many convention issues. Maybe it’s at the root of problems in some convention churches… but convention-wide? I just don’t see it. Maybe that was your point, though.
Tim,
I have to do some “pragmatic” preacher things tonight also, so we can work on this later for sure. It is important.
I would like to say Dr. Yarnell has presented an issue here that is the one real theological problem we have left in the SBC.
We have had folks within our ranks running back and forth between to mansion of John Calvin and the little cabin of “Jake” Arminius ever since some of our forefathers from somewhere, at some time, rode into town, jumped off their horses and said; “We are Baptists and we don’t care if you don’t like it in the least bit.”
We have had Pentecostals, Neo-Pentecostals, Charismatics both Super-Charged and Turbo among us since Azusa Street. We even survived Milton Green and the Greenies. I see no real reason to have such a great stir about spitritual gifts. The Scripture tell us how to operate with gifts and I don’t think we need to add or take anything away from the directives we have in Scripture. Its bad business to do so. I don’t even care the gender of language teachers in our seminaries as long as they teach from a Biblical worldview.
What I believe can and will rip the heart and soul right out of Baptist theology is a weak ecclesiology. As is the doctrine of the Trinity foundational to Christianity ecclesiology is to being Baptist.
Dr. Yarnell has posted something of great importance to all Southern Baptist and we need to have a clear understanding of it if we are to be intact as we await the coming of the Lord.
One more thing, he mentioned Dr. Gerald Cowen’s book, “WHO RULES THE CHURCH?” Dr. Cowen is one of the most knowledgeable men in the SBC as relating to biblical ecclesiology. His book should be read by every Sothern Baptist interested in the doctrine of the church.
He teaches at SEBTS. A conversation on this subject is worth much “theological gold.” I for one, am glad to know him. His students are not confused as to their ecclesiology. At least, those that listened are not. :-)
Again, thank you Malcolm. And thank you, SBC TODAY boys, for finally making it able to comment on this post, even if it is through the back door. :-)
Dear SBC Today,
I guess that Dr. Yarnell thinks that a vote by less than 1% of Southern Baptists on any topic is “overwhelming.” Personally, I have a problem with that.
Dear 10-40,
Dr. Yarnell talked about the BF&M having received “overwhelming affirmation by the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000.” This statement is irrefutable by any reasonable standard.
You are welcome to contribute to the discussion on the issues raised by this post and by Dr. Yarnell’s essay. If your personal problem is related to the polity which led to this overwhelming affirmation, I would respectfully request that you wait for a post on that topic.
Brother CB,
You write; “We have had Pentecostals, Neo-Pentecostals, Charismatics both Super-Charged and Turbo among us since Azusa Street.”
Being the old war-horse that you are, and being around as long as you have, I want to ask you a question. Honestly, I am asking this because I do want to know. It is not a “gotcha” question, neither is it to build an arsenal.
If these groups have been around in the SBC since the early 1900′s, whom would you point to as being part of these groups? Also, has SB ever knowingly placed those that were identified as being part of these groups in leadership?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother CB,
I get my verb forms mixed up all of the time. Should that last question be “has” or “have”. (Please, Lord, do not let Brother Ben Cole see this one!)
Blessings,
Tim
Our church requires a quorum present to conduct business in its quarterly meeting. A quorum is 50 members, out of an active membership of 300, and we are often hard pressed to clear out the corridors so that we can have 50. Even with that, it is difficult to keep personal preferences from coming into play. There is always someone who will stand up and state what their particular “group” wants, or what a particular group won’t do when something is proposed.
Thanks for this article, and for getting Dr Yarnell’s input. This is for the copy, keep, and use later on file.
Tim,
I can give you some names. I would rather do that over the phone. I can tell you the Milton Green situation cost us a very wonderful Southern Baptist evangelist in James Robinson.
Please remember my point was to direct atttention to the problem of which could hurt the SBC more than any other thing we have faced since the “Bill Leonard Band” was making records in Nashville. :-)
cb
Hey guys,
Which type of congregational leadership do you prefer and how do you prefer to implement it?
Seriously curious! I am seeing many different types and I see problems developing with just as many.
Tim G,
We should make a distinction between congregational governance and pastoral leadership. The congregation is ruled by Christ, governed by the congregation, led by the pastor, and served by deacons. Pastoral leadership is not a matter of preference, but of biblical mandate (cf. Acts 20:28; Heb 13:17).
In Christ,
Malcolm
I have a question for Dr. Yarnell.
He states in his essay that “While I am personally unconvinced regarding the need for multiple elders in a single church, there are solid Baptist pastors and theologians who have sincerely received the model.”
Yet, turning to Acts 20:17, didn’t Paul meet with multiple elders from the church in Ephesus? Doesn’t this seem, therefore, to be mandated by the practice of the early church?
As a layman, one of the problems I have seen in Baptist Churches is that can end up as cults of personality based around a “dynamic” Senior Pastor.
We have all seen some mega-churches, some of the Baptist, where the Pastor is the church: he does t.v. commercials, his face appears on billboards, and he basically has his own full-time p.r. campaign.
Such churches often draw many people because of the celebrity status of the Senior Pastor. But they also lack a sense of community.
I was going to respond to Tim G’s question because I really like the way that we try to do it in the church I am a member of. Then I read Malcolm’s note and almost backed out. However, I regard his comment as “theoretical” where I see Tim’s question as applied–and I’m trying to give an applied response.
Some personal philosophy: I think that it is wise of the pastor to stay out of the trivialities of church business–particularly the controversial ones. He should not chair the business meetings (a common “error” in the small churches of my experience). Why create stress when you can let someone else take any heat that develops. Be a peacemaker instead. And it is not fair to discuss a motion if you are chair so your wise council is supposed to be blocked.
And a little more: Congregational meetings (especially in a “below huge” church) are sort of run on Robert’s rules. But when some item comes up that has not come from a committee (and these should be kept to a minimum by having a good and active committee system), you really need to discuss the item before any motion is brought. You can’t bring a good motion until you have had some discussion so why not just have some and then make a clean motion that can be passed (or defeated) without amendments. Robert would not like it, but that is Robert’s problem. This can work very well with a pleasant (and firm) chair of the meetings. You talk about it until everyone understands and then you put together a motion and after further discussion it either passes or fails. Everyone with an opinion gets a chance to give it and this is good. [If the discussion is excessive or no clear motion can be found, then table the discussion until next meeting or refer it to some committee for work. Or you may just "automatically" refer the item to the relevant committee--but there may be some things that need to be voted on at this meeting.]
This being said, our church has a committee for every activity. If there is a staff member for the activity, they should be on the committee–either voting or non-voting as you wish. The committees should help organize and get the budget needs defined for their area and presented to the budget committee. Each committee should be a resource and sounding board for any questions about their area. The committee advises in its area, it does not control (unless you set it up that way)–but it does have great influence on the budget in the area. In the event that a church member has an issue with that area, the issue should be processed by the committee before it comes to the floor. One of the major responsibilities of the committee in this case is to help put together a clear motion for the consideration of the Body. This gives the committee a chance to understand the basic issues and to discuss with the person what the person’s objective is. They should produce the clear motion even if they think it is a dumb issue and have tried to talk the person with the issue out of presenting anything to the Body (of Christ). They are obligated to work with the person in good faith. The committee should present the motion and may say that it is presented with or without the support of the committee. If you select your committee responsibilities carefully, there will be few things that do not belong to one committee or another.
Committees are staffed by the Committee on Committees. The CoC is elected by open nomination by the congregation. We hand out ballots and you put down 5 names. The names are counted and the ones with the highest number of nominations are contacted until the CoC is complete. Interestingly, this has actually resulted in some of the lesser involved people in the church being on this very important committee. I suspect this is because some of the more involved people pass on the honor but it has worked out relatively well. This serves to reduce the probability of some group controlling the operation of the church–not that I have ever seen any group interested in controlling ours.
The function of the pastor in all this should be to set a vision for the church, gain affirmation for the vision and lead the Body toward it. [There seems to me to be a clear distinction between leadership and control that some pastors don't get.] If the vision is done carefully and clearly (most often working through ad hoc committees) then the pastor will normally be consulted about anything that needs clarification about the effect on the church’s goals–and all are happy. Things may not always progress exactly like the pastor wanted, but long term they will probably work out better. Staff members may in some cases functionally chair the committee for their area, but they still have to work with their committee. Humility is good.
My opinion about a staff led church is that it works fine as long as everything is working fine. But it seems brittle if there are problems. Another issue is that if the church is staff led then a lot of good workers may decide “let the staff do it if that is the way they want it.”
I don’t know if there are any other churches that run on this model but for us it sets up a sound structure that seems to work well. We generally know what to do when something comes up. In the spending of money, the committee is consulted if there is any expenditure that is not clearly appropriate–and we have 2 people (not staff) sign each check in an effort to be sure that this happens.
There are a lot of details that are not covered here, but it may give you an idea if you are thinking about how to organize a new church or re-organize an old one. In our church of perhaps 300 attendance, there are enough committee jobs that eveyone who wants one can have one–and we try to limit people to one committee. The CoC watches this. The committees rotate and the normal term of service is 3 years–then you have to “lay out” a year on that committee. Committees that have “day to day” work generally stay fully staffed. Committees that don’t have much to do sometimes go short handed unless they complain.
We have policies for most of the committees that are supposed to define how things work and who does what. They seem to work pretty well.
Bennett Willis
Bennett,
The local churches I pastored functioned in some similar ways. Thanks for the practical outworking.
Sam,
The kind of logic you have used in ascribing a strict corporate plural rather than the collective plural, when applied to 1 Timothy 3:12, leads to some difficult moral problems, don’t you think?
Now, as to your other question, let me state clearly: We are to worship Jesus Christ alone. If a pastor discovers that some are unduly elevating him, he needs to correct this gross spiritual error. A good sermon on the depravity of man (including himself) or the deception of idolatry would be prudent.
IN Christ,
Malcolm
Malcolm,
As Wittgenstein stated in his Philosophical Investigations, we must look at see how words are used in the context in which they are spoken: Don’t think but look!”
Of course it is clear in the context of the whole bible that Paul, in his admonition to Timothy, is speaking of each deacon having his own individual wife.
It is not clear–in fact it is a mere assumption–that in Acts, the multiple Elders each had their own congregations. The text of Acts 20:17 merely states, “From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.” It says nothing about there being multiple congregations in Ephesus.
Secondly, even if we assume that there were multiple congregations in Ephesus, in Acts they are all referred to as “the church” of Ephesus.
Therefore, even if you posit that there were multiple congregations, on a practical working level there was only one church. This in itself has implications for church structure and authority.
Being among Baptist local congregation leadership for almost 27 years, it has been fascinating to see the breadth or lack of understanding that Pastors bring to their flocks on the subject of “Feeding Sheep”. I have seen Pastors be demoted and /or ultimately dismissed by the “Sheep” for preaching the truth. For the most part, Pastors that are given the boot simply shrug off the abrupt firing as the “will of God”, sulk for a while, and then move on to the next camp.
Dr. Yarnell, do you think that Sheep have a tendency to become “rulers” or even be tempted to “rule” through the democratic process of congregational rule? I have seen this tendency in almost every Baptist church where I have served. I have experienced a few Baptist congregations that were not tempted in this manner, and in each case the church was blessed with more than one mature leader. Is this what Paul is getting at when tutoring his young Pastors?
Thanks for your post…..
-Chris
Sam (?),
Indeed, Ludwig speaks correctly here, and this is why we must be careful with simplistic uses of the plural. Perhaps you will be so kind as to spell out what you believe the ecclesiological implications of your exposition of Acts 20 to be.
Chris,
I, too, have seen, and experienced, churches that were not exercising governance appropriately, but it was usually because only a portion of the congregation was involved, rather than the entire congregation. The most difficulty I have ever had as a pastor was when an elitist group sought to coopt the congregation’s authority for itself. A good shepherd will lead all of his sheep, and not be led by them. Of course, the only proper form of Christian leadership is that of proclaiming and applying the Word.
As you seem to indicate, the Pauline pattern is the best approach for raising up young leaders. Then again, Paul was an apostle and his authority may not be currently duplicated by church leaders.
In Christ,
Malcolm
Wes,
In your response to John, I noted this comment:
“We have had some fairly contentious debates within the convention in recent years on the subject of baptism, and I believe these debates reflect significant confusion of the issue.”
Indeed. What is the solution to this problem? While I applaud the many who would interpret Scripture for us as to what is “Baptist Ecclesiology” the result of this exercise it seems to often fits into the category of “in the eye of the beholder.” We, the churches of the SBC, could have all benefited from the work of Dr. Yarnell and his contrarians to our benefit before the IMB voted on the baptismal requirements (in example). It probably could have afforded us a little more insight, buy in and acceptance to the necessity of such policies, and a peace than that is not currently present.
I applaud Dr. Yarnell on the breadth and scholarly insight he brings into this quest, and agree with him wholeheartedly. Congregationalism is in a losing proposition today as vast number of churches and notably our conventions have totally abandoned it as viable.
I disagree with Bennett Willis who believes that the “The function of the pastor in all this should be to set a vision for the church, gain affirmation for the vision and lead the Body toward it.” This top-down style of vision leaves out a truth that is the core of a congregational led church – that all people who have been bought by the blood of Christ now have the Spirit of Christ, and thus God speaks to them too. We each are accountable to the Lordship of Christ – not just those who have ecclesiastical credentials. As Henry Blackaby noted, “See where God is working, and join Him in His work” often takes more than one set of eyes – thus the Spirit of God works in mysterious ways often times showing the vast number of folks in a given church His will before He ever shows staff. They just need a voice to share it. Often I find that if a Pastor believes what Bennet believes, it will oftentimes lead to a place where the vision or concerns of the people are never heard by ministerial staff – to that Pastor’s demise. Oftentimes the response of a staff member to these “contrary” visions or concerns not produced by staff is, “How can I get around these people and force through what I want?” Ask David Cox sometime about his experience as a Pastor in the delivery of a top down vision to a church.
Rob
Thank you Dr. Yarnell for the excellent point concerning the authority of Paul. (There definitely are a lot of Paul wantabees :) )
More specifically, I was thinking about the event when Paul called for the Elders…..in Acts 17. He appears to not in any manner dispense apostolic authority onto the Elders, but it does appear that recognizes what God has called out to lead the congregations as significant and in plurality.
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
(Acts 20:17-32)
Thanks again for your comments,
-Chris
Chris,
Thanks for the clarification. With regard to multiple elders, may I point you to the excellent essays by Danny Akin and Paige Patterson discussed in my bibliographical note? Again, the use of the plural is not necessarily indicative of what pro-plural-elder theologians take it to be. The context of the passage in the early churches (often house churches) seems to call for a collective rather than a corporate plural.
Agreed, and there appeared to be a great deal of participation among the house congregates (churches), and their leaders, which could be a wonderful learning tool for all christians living together in a city.
Thanks again,
-Chris
Rob, Regarding comment #28–
I did not suggest that the pastor single handedly come up with the vision. Remember the ad hoc committee that is supposed to help. Pastors need to work with as many of their congregation as possible but just not on church “business.”
But I did watch my father-in-law once. He was a chamber of commerce manager in a small town at the time and a retired business man. We rode together to talk with another business man about some chamber function and my f-i-l told me how the problem should be solved. Then he asked the business man what should be done. It probably took the business man 10 minutes or more to come “independently” to the solution I had heard on the way to town.
I suppose that could be called manipulation, but they did talk about many possible solutions. I’m reasonably confident that my father-in-law would have switched to one of them had they been superior–but it did not happen. But I remembered this conversation every time he and I talked about how things should go and I still think of it when working on a solution to a problem.
Bennett Willis