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.

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

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

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.

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

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

“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.

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.