Tim Guthrie: Moving Forward…Part 2
Posted byDoctrine:
As we proceed with this series, we will deal quickly with the doctrinal issues pertaining to the SBC and her entities. Read carefully the words following. I believe these words summarize and settle the discussion currently being held around the SBC.
Dr. Morris Chapman said this:
“It is imperative that our Convention return to some sense of normalcy in the operation of the Convention. May I suggest one way to begin the process? Southern Baptists now agree that our trustees should be inerrantists. We believe they should embrace the Baptist Faith and Message (there is only one, you know… the last one). Most believe that trustees and their churches should be faithful in giving a significant amount through the Cooperative Program. We believe our trustees should have a heart for lost souls and be affiliated with churches that evangelize at home, and support missions around the globe. And finally, but most importantly, our trustees should be people who have a close daily walk with our Lord Jesus Christ.” (SBC 2004 in Indy)
Thus, according to Dr. Chapman, the SBC has set the course for doctrinal issues. Included with that course is a great statement concerning our Trustee system. Trustees should be inerrantists and they should embrace the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. This is in fact the correct minimal interpretation of this issue. This, in my opinion should be were the discussion or “fuss” ends. I thank God for our entity leaders. Our Seminaries are led by men of integrity to the Word of God. We have changed the course of past deficiencies and now are challenged to maintain that course. Though some may wave flags of supposed threats to certain ideas (Calvinism etc.), they are indeed just threats. There is no move a foot to remove such from participation in the SBC. There should also be no move a foot to infiltrate the SBC. Our course is set. We need to stay the course. We need to guard the course setting. It is in the area of education and the teaching of ecclesiology that we may find our challenge to be a constant tug of war. It is here that the maximal arguments pertaining to the BF&M break down. It is here where we will find thousands of differing views. Yet the choice of selection of schools is open and that is fine. Since numbers do not matter (as some are saying), numbers should not effect what we teach. Our doctrine must remain consistent.
Our doctrinal issues show a need for a specific core understanding concerning the SBC. Since we are not a denomination, it is not imperative that every church accept what other churches desire. This is central to who we have been as Southern Baptist. It is however important to understand the need for consistency in SBC entities. Whether it is in training of students or the sending of missionaries, we must be “on course” in a minimal sense. Some entities will go beyond. They must. Their function require this. No large group will ever agree nor can a vote be held on every issue (and there will be many). That is why we, in our structure, have adopted the Trustee system.
It is imperative to discuss the Trustee system when viewing our doctrinal issues. The SBC has chosen the Trustee system to oversee the Entities of the SBC. Doctrinally, the Trustees deal with much. In fact, Dr. Page said it best when he said:
“There are a multitude of issues that have to be dealt with within the trustee framework that go way beyond the Baptist Faith and Message. … There are many things that the Baptist Faith and Message just simply doesn’t deal with.” (Interview w/Florida Baptist Witness)
So it is true and should be easy for us to grasp that the Trustees will go beyond the BF&M in multiple situations when dealing with Entity issues pertaining with doctrine. Yet, moving along…
It is also important to realize that the SBC is NOT a denomination in it’s structure nor daily operations. This could be part of our confusion. It is a confusion of understanding. Just as it is true that Baptist are not protestants, we are not a denomination nor do we desire to be in our origin. A Denomination naturally equals “hierarchy”. We have none. Our churches are independent, thus allowed to function as they feel led under the Spirit of God. It is true that a person can find many different flavors of SBC churches. We combine only in the area of supporting Missionaries and influence in our culture and in the area of education (formal and literature). If a church desires to believe different and yet still support the mission sending aspects of the convention – so be it. If a church decides to send people for candidacy, those whose beliefs differ, they will probably not qualify nor be sent. But in reality, there is no other way nor is there any other system much less denomination, that works any different. All have standards and all stick with them. The SBC should be no different. We might also remember that those who claim to say we limit thus hurt our numbers, are also saying that numbers do not matter. That is true when it pertains to doctrinal purity and maintaining doctrinal standards in line with our Lord and his inerrant word.
Our doctrine must be set. It should not be up for vote every twenty years or so. Nor can our doctrine be subject to changing churches that may be weak in theology. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message sets the minimal standard for cooperation. Each entity is thus trusted to proceed from that point in selecting it’s course of action in hiring and spreading the Gospel. It is my firm conviction that the attacks in the area of doctrine may be our toughest issues in the years to come. Churches are weak theologically speaking. This will only increase with each passing day. Hearts are convicted to “go and reach”, yet it is our responsibility to maintain that people going out as SBC, reach with the best, most doctrinally sound form of the Gospel that we can share. We hold to our faith in Christ and live in full reality of His Lordship. We deny our human tendencies and fallibility’s to live in submission to His Lordship. We can do no less. Many systems of thought may and will abound. Yet it is our command to stay truthful to His Word and resist modern attempts to compromise or culture our doctrine.
The implementation of our doctrine is first seen or not seen, in our commitment and effectiveness to sharing Jesus to a lost and dying world.
That is the thrust of the next post. Hope to see you there!
54 Comments
April 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
The money quote:
“Hearts are convicted to “go and reach”, yet it is our responsibility to maintain that people going out as SBC, reach with the best, most doctrinally sound form of the Gospel that we can share.”
April 1st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
cb,
It is indeed true. Name one other Mission sending agency that would disagree? I had missionary couple in to speak at our church this year that, due to their divorce issues of previous mates (both husband and wife were divorced) thus not qualifying for the IMB, were accepted by another group, but their hurdles made ours look simple and easy.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I might add that I was not aware of the divorce issues and only found out through dialogue after they spoke to a group of ours. I did not cleanse the meeting room either.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
and I might add, it is difficult to tell someone that they have not heard from God when they are convinced that they have.
I will now save some info and thoughts for other comments – been one of those days!!!!
April 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Brother Tim,
That was well put, plain and simple and I agree wholly. Very well written.
One issue with the post: You said “We deny our human tendencies and fallibility’s to live in submission to His Lordship.”
Are you proposing that we submit to Jesus as “Lord” and not just our Savior?
Also, in your last response #4 you said, “it is difficult to tell someone that they have not heard from God when they are convinced that they have.”
My question is this, do you believe that God speaks to people with special revelation outside the written Word of God?
I don’t really know if these questions actually add to the conversation about the topic at hand, so my apologies if I am on a tangent.
Grace and Peace to all…
ABClay
April 1st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Robin,
The BFM 2000 teaches ‘closed communion and this Doctrine is one of the Greatest Witnesses for Jesus Christ and the Unity of His Church.
My mentor in Banking had an expression he used “Go Blow it out of your Barracks Bag”. He was an old Marine who served in WWII.
This is why you and your friends are set apart in all this FUSS as you call it. All of your augments should be Christ Centered, not Doctrine Centered. You Robin missed the Main Point of Dr. Chapman’s Quote.
“We believe our trustees should have a heart for lost souls and be affiliated with churches that evangelize at home, and support missions around the globe.”
“”And finally, but most importantly, our trustees should be people who have a close daily walk with our Lord Jesus Christ.” (SBC 2004 in Indy””
Stop Preaching Doctrine and start Preaching the Gospel Jesus Christ Crucified to be United in the Church of Jesus Christ.
In His Name
Wayne
April 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Wayne,
I don’t mean to misintrepret what you are saying so firgive me if I have misunderstood.
There is not “true” gospel without doctrine. Can this be taken too far? I believe so, yet as long as the ecclesialogical doctrines are based in the bible, it can do nothing but edify the church and keep it a pure and holy bride for our bridegroom when He returns.
I think you may be confusing doctrinal standards within the churches of the SBC with the actual implementing of the great commision by the churches of the SBC.
Preach the Gospel, AMEN brother, but it must be the correct Gospel.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
April 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Bro. Tim,
Excellent series thus far, looking forward to the rest.
Bro. Wayne,
What you advocate is not Biblical. The apostle Paul, in his advice to a young pastor named Timothy, said:
10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
II Tim. 3:10-17 NKJV.
Scripture clearly here (and elsewhere) instructs us to preach doctrine. You can not preach a Biblical Jesus, without preaching doctrine. Doctrine is very important in the believer’s life, or rather it should be. No where in Scripture are we commanded to only preach Jesus and not preach doctrine. Quite the contrary.
Blessings,
Ron P.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Tim,
Divorcé, Divorcé; what’s wrong with God using people who are Divorced?
One of Our Greatest Pastor’s IMHO is Dr. Charles Stanley (In Touch Ministries). God has Blessed this World Wide Ministries in every way possible. Why, because Dr. Stanley Preaches God Word. I know there are snickers because of his Divorce from the Pharisees within the SBC Churches.
In His Name
Wayne
April 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
ABClay and Ron P,
I should have said Preach the Gospel (Bible) not SBC Doctrine, BFm2000.
In His Name
Wayne
April 1st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Bro. Wayne,
Thank you for clarifying your statement.
Though, I would add that I am one who unashamedly believes that our SBC doctrines and the BFM is based upon Scripture. If they were not, I would not be a Southern Baptist.
Blessings,
Ron P.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
ABClay and Ron P,
When Baptist talk about Doctrine, they usually are talking about traditions, rather than the Gospel.
In His Name
Wayne
April 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Wayne,
The situation Dr. Stanley is in is “complicated” to say the least.
My boys and I listen to him every morning Monday through Friday at 4:30 a.m. while we lift weights. He is doing some of his greatest preaching right now. I believe him to be a gifted man of God.
Yet, I believe he would agree with Tim G as far as being qualified to be a Southern Baptist missionary. I really believe Dr. Charles Stanley would disqualify himself to be a career missionary with the IMB of the SBC.
If I am wrong about that I would be greatly surprised.
cb
April 1st, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Ron P,
Then you are saying you would not allow fellow Born Again Christians to take Holy Communion (Lord Supper) unless they were Baptist in your Church?
In His Name
Wayne
April 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Brother Wayne,
I tend to believe that being divorced does not disqualify him from preaching, it does, however i believe, disqualify him from being a pastor.
Ouch….why did I have to go and say that????
There is a difference. Now, you may ask, why is he disqualified from being a missionary? Probably because of the reproach that the divorce could bring upon him and the church in the eyes of some unreached people groups who may have different moral standards than we do.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
April 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Bro. Wayne,
Not to belabor the point, as I have to leave to go to church now, but most of the conservative Southern Baptists bloggers who are involved in this discussion about the SBC, clearly distinguish doctrine from tradition and hold the former, not the latter, in high regard.
Have a great evening,
Ron P.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
CB,
We have been part of Dr. Charles Stanley Ministries for more than 30 years. Dr. Stanley is what I call one of the Greatest Missionaries that we in the Christian Church have. In Touch Ministries is now World Wide.
In His Name
Wayne
April 1st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Just finished a Pre-marital counseling session. Heading home. Will respond shortly. Today got crazy in a good way. This is great discussion. I will respond ASAP.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Here goes:
ABC – we must submit to both. Accept Him as Savior and acknowledge and accept Him as Lord – you cannot seperate the two.
Wayne, I disagree with your comment in #6. You cannot teach Jesus Christ Cruxified and Risen as atonement for our sin without teaching doctrine. That is a major issue. I also think you missed my point about the illustration of the divorce couple. Dr. Stanley would indeed disqualify himself from IMB service. I was not arguing for or against – but simply showing how the BF&M does not cover it all and other groups do make the same standards over issues that we discuss. Some much more different yet they consider themselves Evangelical and COnservative. The argument has been painted with a broad brush that does not put paint on real wood.
cb,
I do agree on the Stanley interpretation you gave.
Pertaining to tradition vs. doctrine – this is another area where a pictured has been framed that is not a real picture. Some individuals may hold tradition higher, but not the conservative bloggers I know and just wait for a future post in methods – you will see that I do not either.
As for the Communion issue, you can interpret that one several ways – I have even heard that debate argued 1000 ways.
ABC, your discussion of the divorce issue highlights in a large way why the BF&M is not a maximum statement. Thank you. I wondered when someone would make the connection! Cudos!
Ron P,
Thanks!
April 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
ABC,
To your question of comment #5 – NO!
There are many who say “God told me to…” and yet there supposed “word from God” violates scripture. It is usually at this point that people either ignore the confusion (accept false and bad doctrine) or they surrender to the reality that every time we think we are hearing from God we must check it with scripture – God will never contradict Himself!
April 1st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Tim G.
LOL, I was wandering if you were going to get that one.
This is a difficult one to deal with, especially when there are pastors in the SBC who continuously tell their people that God is telling them this and that. Most times, this doesn’t contradict scripture, yet it sets a horrible precedent for their flocks to follow.
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
April 1st, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I think my comment may have been lost. Here goes again. You wrote:
\”Just as it is true that Baptist are not protestants, we are not a denomination nor do we desire to be in our origin.\”
Baptists are not Protestants? Was that a mistype?
What Southern Baptist historian argues that Baptists are not Protestants? Do they teach that in the seminaries now?
Are you a Baptist successionist, Tim – A trail of blood kinda guy?
Because the only folks that I know who still argue that Baptists are not Protestants are Independent, fundamental Baptists (Landmark Baptists). Even Mr. Anabaptist Influence, Dr. William Estep, did not argue that Baptists are not Protestants.
What Baptist History text have you been reading lately?
April 1st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
BDiddy,
I caught that too and I originally thought that was a typo.
Now that I think about it a little longer, I recall a certain renown bald man who said that he himself was “a baptist in the long tradition of anabaptists”.
I found this disturbing at the time, but it was mainly because of his methods used in his argument and not the historical content of his rant that had me repenting of murder. I passed it off as just another one of his inaccuracies in a long list of straw men arguments that he had set up so he could burn them down.
Tim G.,
Now that Big Daddy brings it up, what are your thoughts on this?
Grace and Peace to y’all,
ABClay
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 am
Is there a move afoot for Calvinism to “infiltrate” the SBC? You said there shouldn’t be, which suggests that you think there might be.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
I hold to the Doctrines of His Marvelous Grace and don’t give a whoop if the SBC is all Calvinists or all Arminian, “it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.” Was it ML Jones who said let’s go the grammar school of repentance before we go to the university of election? The SBC is simply a place for the grammar school of repentance, your local Body is for the university of election…or free-will in other cases.
The convention is a “fairly” big tent but if you want the Doctrines of Grace folks out then we tell you to press on with the Gospel on your end and we shall on our end and may both groups be faithful unto death. The only “move afoot” for me is to cling to His Righteousness because frankly mine stinks to all get out.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I do not think that there is a move to infiltrate. All I was saying was that there need not be!
As for not being Protestant – I do not believe that we Baptist came out of the reformation.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Brother Tim,
What would you say is the genesis of this critter known as Baptist? Pre-ref / Post-ref / Mid-ref?
Thanks
Chris
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I would say that the critter is Pre – but remember I am pre-trib also
!
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
What did we come out of Tim?
So you’re suggesting that we Baptists do not trace our origins to the Separatists of the Church of England? And I even concede some Anabaptist influence. But the early Baptists came out of England.
Based on your statement, I assume that subscribe to some theory of Baptist successionism? What Southern Baptist historians have you read?
Since you brought up Baptist origins in your post, I think this is a very worthy discussion. It’s good to know where we came from…
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Tim, I have been on vacation, or I would have surely and soundly chastised you for a statement in your introduction to this discussion on your site.
You said, “Monday I will begin posting a series on how the SBC can move forward now that the reform movement has proven that it is nothing more than an new approach to old liberal ideas.”
I challenge the truth of that statement. What is more, I think you knew the statement was false when you made it. There are many of us who seek reform to what we perceive to be abuses of power in the SBC, but who are fully and totally committed to a conservative SBC. We have interacted with you consistently.
You know this. I think it is easier for you to deal with the issues of reform by simply dismissing them as liberal rather than dealing with the issues.
I am upset that you resorted to smearing the character, doctrine and intent of those who disagree with you, rather than engaging them in debate.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Brother Dave,
You seem to have double-posted the same thing. I deleted one of them. Therefore, if your computer shows that I have deleted a post, you will know why.
Blessings,
Tim
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Brother Tim G,
I would probably say that the “Baptist critter” has reformed itself to the “Pre-ref” or original doctrine of scripture, but I would have to agree with BDW, in that history records the “critter” being recognized at a “mid” or “post” ref dating.
Can you help us out on the historicity of Pre-ref?
Thanks,
Chris
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
the baptist church i belong to was started by some feller named leroy, and he came out of some little church back in a holler down the road a piece…it was called skullbone baptist church. i think it was started by a couple named myrtice and cletus…they had a boy named labelle, but everyone called him “gus.”
i dont know anything about england baptists or anabaptists.
david
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I think that means that vol is a “Tennessee Post-ref. ” (I saw one last week emerging out of the same holler). They are extremely evangelistic!
-Chris
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
BDaddy,
It may have been my bad in allowing that phrase to start a side discussion that could indeed distract.
dave,
If you will follow along with the series I think you will see what I am referencing. trust you had a great vacation! I am ready for one myself but will not see it for a few more months.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Tim G,
I too intend to follow. I also question the statement to which Dave has directed your attention.
I will wait to see how you deal with it.
At the same time, the very foundation of this series deals with a possible need of reform to some degree or I have totally missed your intent.
cb
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hint: Could it be that reform is not the right word or attitude?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Well Tim,
Nice cop out. I invite you (and Volfan) to read a Baptist History text. Ask blogger/SB historian Nathan Finn for a suggestion or two. It’s amazing that you’re authoring a series on how the SBC should “Move Forward” yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of Baptist history and origins. Volfan’s flippant attitude towards the history of Baptists is quite revealing. Why even get involved in this LONG debate about the Future of Baptists (and Southern Baptists in particular) if you’re apathetic towards the 400 years of Baptist heritage?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
BDaddy,
Patience my boy. No need to throw darts here. Sit back and relax, you might enjoy it. Fighting and calling people out ain’t all there is to blogging!
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I just had to type another response for BDaddy due to the anti-spam word being PATIENCE. Thought it was a neat sequence of events.
P.S. I have read a book or two on Baptist History. However, they are not on my frequent reading list at the moment. Which are you reading and referring to – I would like to see the quality of your library.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Tim Rogers, thank you for deleting the post. The SBC Today site said I had given the wrong anti-spam word. Finally, I did it all over again. I guess the first one went through. I’m just glad it didn’t go through 4 or 5 times.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Glad you asked:
The ultimate (in size) Baptist survey text is Leon McBeth’s The Baptist Heritage. I’m sure quite a few seminary students (especially those at SWBTS) are familiar with the work of McBeth. Of course, Bill Leonard’s Baptist Ways is also on my bookshelf. I recently reread William Estep’s The Anabaptist Story which plays up Anabaptist influence on the early General Baptists. Curtis Freeman’s Baptist Roots is an excellent primary source reader if you’re interested in that. The English Separatist Tradition AND The English Baptists of the 17th Century by British Baptist B.R. White are two other important texts. Any book by William Brackney is worth checking out – particularly his “A Genetic History of Baptist Thought.”
If you’re looking for a book authored by an SBC employee then Michael Haykin’s “Kiffin, Knollys and Keach: Rediscovering” our English Baptist Heritage is a good choice. Other than him, I don’t have any additional SBC names. I’ve read some stuff by Tom Nettles. But the most widely read Baptist historians are either deceased or not SBC. Although, Southern Baptists still read and cite McBeth, Estep and Leonard (though obviously they’ll disagree with Leonard on his analysis of the most recent 30 years or so). I can’t rattle off a list of more names but I’ll stop here. My library of Baptist related books is rather large.
And of course, I do recommend my dad’s about to be released Baptist history text –
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
big daddy,
i’ve read some baptist history books, and i’m very appreciative of how those ole boys stood on some very important issues.
david
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
It cut off the title…
It is:
In Search of a New Testament Church: A History of Baptists
http://www.mupress.org/webpages/books/H653.html
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Sorry I’m late to the party about the discussion of Baptist History. I hope Tim will reveal just where he thinks Baptists originated from if he discounts or dismisses the generally accepted view that Baptists arose from within English Separatism in the early 17th Century. I think Estep makes a good case as well for the influence of continental Anabaptism on the English Separatists in the generation or so prior to Smyth and Helwys’ actions in Amsterdam and Helwys return to England.
I was privileged to be a grader for a time for Dr. Estep and took a reformation study tour with him to Europe back in the Dark Ages. Dr. McBeth was my supervising professor for my Ph.D. so I’m deeply grateful for the contributions of both men. I even had the opportunity of taking Baptist History with Dr. Robert Baker before his retirement from SWBTS. The three were a very distinguished trio of Baptist historians in that time.
One of the works we read for Dr. Estep in a doctoral seminar on the Radical Reformation was a dissertation by Irvin Horst, entitled The Radical Brethren: Anabaptism and the English Reformation to 1558. Horst examines many primary documents from the time period that strongly suggest the influence by if not direct descendancy of English Separatists from the Anabaptists on the European continent.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 am
Gary,
Good stuff. As stated prior, though the mention was for application of connection in our thoughts to denominationalism, I realize that curious minds wish me to go further on this specific point. I have chosen not to allow it to take away from the intent of the series which is to move us forward as a convention in our mission and focus. I do not desire to side step but I also do not desire to get bogged down in a discussion of this area during this series. But I do realize that it would indeed make for a great discussion.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:43 am
david,
I agree with your appreciation! Indeed they stood well on some things! May we!
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:38 am
I’m sure you will say that this isn’t your intent, but I can’t help hearing this when I read:
“Our doctrine is right, our methods are right, and our leaders above reproach, so as we talk about moving forward, let’s not talk about those things.”
I don’t think that is true.
One subtle change in the BFM, changing the word elder to pastor, has paved the way for what I believe is one of the biggest problems besetting the SBC: Single pastor – authoritarian rule. I’m only speaking of what I have seen and heard in a few decades of being SBC, but I have seen and heard it time and time again, especially in small churches. We can talk about servant leadership until our ears bleed, but over and over again a new pastor’s paradigm for servant leadership is: “I’ll serve you by leading you. Now do what I say.”
A related topic. I believe the SBC would be well served by deliberately preparing Pastors (I prefer elders) for bi-vocational ministry. Small churches are hard pressed to support a full time minister and often have to commit 70% of their budget or higher just to support the pastor and his family. That leaves precious little for maintenance and ministry and missions. Even those churches and pastors who have a bi-vocational relationship do it grudgingly, and believe that it is a less than desirable situation. Bi-vocational ministry is noble and necessary in many small and unreached communities around this country and the world. It ought to be supported and encouraged.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 am
Brother Bill,
Great concepts, but there seems to be just some things that make me a little uncomfortable. First you note the change from Pastor to Elder in the BF&M. Here is the original wording in the 1925 BF&M Its Scriptural officers are bishops, or elders, and deacons. What you note as a ‘change’ in reality is a return to the original language of the BF&M.
Second, is your preference of ‘Elder’ being the term instead of Pastor. Would you also affirm Elder rule instead of congregational rule churches? It seems that those who prefer ‘Elder’ also prefer a Board of Elders making the decisions for the Congregations. When ‘Pastor’ is the preferred term, I have found that many believe in congregational rule instead of a Board of Deacons. With a Congregational rule government, there are extremes on both ends. However, the basic premise is that the Pastor, Deacons, and any committees have only as much authority as the congregation allows. If the congregation grants the Pastor authority to say, this is the way I am going let’s go, then it is not an authoritarian pastor. If the congregation rules there is nothing that can be done without a congregational vote then the pastor must abide by that. The congregation is the final say.
Third, you speak of bi-vocational pastors. I know in remote areas there is a need for bi-vocational pastors. I do question the need for bi-vocational pastors in areas that the church could support a full-time pastor. If a church is not in a remote area and has to take 70% of their budget to have a full-time pastor, there is nothing wrong with that. Why? The area will support the church growth that will be required to increase the budget. A bi-vocational pastor is a unique calling. I have a friend that went to Indiana and took a church running about 20 and could not afford a full-time pastor. They called him and he agreed that he would come and work in his profession of hanging sheet rock to supplement his income if the church would agree that they would allow the church to grow to a point he could become full-time. This arrangement took place in 2000 and today he is full-time and the church is supporting him and another staff person. God has used him, but if he would have had the mind set that he was only going there to be bi-vocational, he would still be ministering to only those 20 people. As to the amount it takes for a family to live, do you realize that in the 50’s a company would pay a salary that would support a family? What happened? Companies began saying that if a family needed more money then the wife could begin work. Shouldn’t the church be more responsible about looking after families that God sends than secular companies?
Blessings,
Tim
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
Brother Bill,
Not to get to far afoot from the topic of aiming at clear doctrine within the SBC, I think you bring up some important factors and misunderstandings that plague the contemporary church.
I would contend that we need to be careful as we camp on terms and descriptors, such as full-time, bi-vocational, authoritarian, complimentarian, and egalitarian, etc.
Scripture is woefully short of our manmade nomenclature, although it can be helpful to use some of these to try and explain various positions and directions.
I personally like what you have brought forward about elders/pastors, etc. It is clear in scripture that the church teaches a plurality of leadership and exhorts that direction if in fact a church is deficient with only a single elder/pastor. It is a sign of maturity for a church to have a plurality of leadership that has qualified to be elders. This was an issue for Timothy and Paul revealed God breathed solutions to the churches dilemma and instruction for all of ours moving forward.
My experience is a good example. Although working in various ministries in several churches for the past 32 years, I was ordained to the responsibility of elder/pastor about 7 years ago and while serving day in and day out, I have never received pay, yet as Paul would say… I certainly could give explanation for remuneration, but I found it was unnecessary because I am able to support myself and continue to minister unimpeded. For a church to be able to support the needs of the overseer and his family is certainly a great privilege, but the work of the ministry outweighs the requirement to support the elder….that is one of Paul’s basic teachings reflected by his own life in ministry.
We started a new mission in Hermitage a little over a year ago. In that mission church we have two elder/pastors and a third man that will be ordained sometime this year, possibly a fourth. We have a total of seven families (25 people). We have some of the greatest servants I know, both men and women. God has truly blessed His church in Hermitage. 100% of the revenues (offerings) contributed by our members go to our local mission to dispense the gospel (in Hermitage where we send the gospel to the doors of 1937 homes every three weeks) and to our team that support our world mission efforts in the Kibera slums in Nairobi, Africa. We are not in debt and will never be in debt. So, yes Bill, it can and is being done without grumbling! It is a great joy!
Blessings,
Chris
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am
A few things about the elder / pastor issue. I think the 1925 document is the best rendering because it has the strongest biblical support. Elder (sometimes bishop) is the word used for the office or position or whatever you want to call it. Pastor is not an office, it is a spiritual gift. The words are not synonymous.
I believe in a congregational form of government, led by a plurality of elders. At least one of those elders should be gifted as a pastor.
Deacons are not elders. They should not function as elders. This is where Baptist churches have gotten it wrong for years.
Here is the problem: The “pastor” is usually someone (initially) from outside the congregation. Usually from someone outside the community. He doesn’t know the people and the people don’t know him. He is, humanly speaking, the central figure for that body. How much better for the body would it be two have two or more local elders to lead with the Pastor? It provides support, and accountability. The local elders can be advocates for both the pastor and the congregation with the pastor. It provides continuity for the body when the pastor leaves in 18 months, or whatever the statistic is currently.
Could the system be abused? Certainly. But I maintain than an elder system is far less likely to be abused than the singular pastor system. I have seen so many disputes over pastoral authority in my own little corner of NY State that it doesn’t take a genius to realize that if it is happening here it is happening elsewhere.
Tim: Regarding bi-vocationality. I can’t help concluding by your response that you do indeed think that a bi-vocational situation is indeed second best and should be at most, temporary. I tend to think that a bi-vocational situation was how the early church practiced it and that it ought to be applauded and encouraged. It isn’t just about what the church can afford.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Brother Bill,
Thanks for your answer. You seem to advocate a mix in what is known as Baptist Identity. Even with the 1925 BF&M Elders were noted different than Deacons. As one follows the route of Scripture behind this statement I believe one will notice the 25 BF&M identified the synonymous relationship of Bishop/Elder. While the 63 and 2000 BF&M identify that office as Pastor. Your statement is one that calls for further investigation. As you say the office of Pastor is not necessarily an office as much as it is a Gift. Great Comment.
As to the bi-vocational role, I do not intend to communicate that a bi-vocational pastor is less than a full-time pastor. I greatly admire bi-vocational pastors. I am just saying that if God has called you to that role and gifted you to serve in that role, why would one not desire to do it full-time? Also, Paul admonishes that we are not to muzzle the ox that treads corn. He also says that those who minister the Word are worthy of double honor. Why would we try to get a pastor for the least amount of money that we could? Unless, of course, if the church views the role of the pastor as one that merely shows up on Sunday to preach. If that is the view then we can find monkeys and teach them to do that.
Blessings,
Tim
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Tim,
I do agree with you in your first response to Bill.
I do hope this thread does not dwindle into a debate about elders, pastors, deacons, offices and ordination. They are not taking enough time in seminary to deal with topic. How can it be done on a blog post?
Bill, take the time to study the early church, biblical languages, church history, and Baptist history, plus spend great amounts of time in the epistles of Paul and you will get the answers to all of your concerns.
I hope this continues to be a post and comment thread about the SBC and its theology, origins (Big Daddy has made a couple of very good points in his comments) problems, cures, hopes and dreams
cb
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Tim: I agree that this bends Baptist Identity a little but I think this is an area where it needs to be bent. Baptist Identity should be as close as possible to biblical identity and I think this is one place where we have drifted.
CB: I have studied it and I know the answers to my concerns. Putting the solutions in place is the hard part. You said they don’t take enough time in seminary to deal with the topic. Good point. Perhaps if they did we wouldn’t be discussing it in a blog post.