Thank you for your thoughtful and well documented reply. This is the type of stuff both you and I enjoy and I think it can be profitable. Right off the bat, I will concede that your Webster’s far outranks the one I used, even though I chose to use the lesser political and social definitions on purpose.

:)

I will try to answer your initial question and then make a few comments on the other men’s material and comments on the “Discipline” process.

First of all…. Our group, including myself as an Elder, do expect the Elders (which I agree must be able to teach)… where so far… we have “four men” that have aspired and are qualified to lead to lead the church. If any one of these men are found to be unqualified by the testimony of two witnesses, they are immediately brought before the church, and removed from leading and pastoral responsibility,…. and over time prayerfully restored to leading if possible, if not,…we expect that they will remain with us and serve the church with the gifts granted to them by the Holy Spirit.

When you used John Hammett to explain the 1 Timothy 5:17 verse, I was pleasantly surprised, even though he did not address the “well” in the short commentary, but instead chose to drive Paul’s meaning toward a negative aspect or abuse beyond the context of the writing. I would agree with the conclusions that he arrived at though, since as “well” is included in the meaning, it does give more of the sense of directing and positive rule. The quality of the definition I use for “ruling” is not negative, but reflects the positive aspect supported by the context which is never independent of the congregation. “Ruling well”, is an extreme positive for the church.

In times of church conflict, the Elders teach,…we do not subjectively (behind closed doors) decide anything, nor was this the practice of the early churches. If we are behind closed doors we are studying hard to be able to teach rightly. We then lead the congregation not to depend upon “opinion”, or if one side or the other can build a majority,… but instead we teach and train concerning the “error or the conflict” until we have resolution that is clearly exposed by the Word of God. Then we pray and come together as a congregation in one accord. Our democratic processes include teaching and instruction from the Elders “relating to” and “appealing to” the broad masses (majority) and then we pray and come together in unity. The Word of God is the final arbitrator and everyone is involved without discrimination and secret ballots are not necessary.

As far as church discipline goes…you have covered an expanse of contexts. Matthew and 1 & 2 Corinthians covers the entire spectrum of sin. In either case the entire congregation is engaged, but I would contend that “majority” is better rendered “of many” (apo to?n pleiono?n ) to include the entire congregation in agreement. But, even so, I do not dispute that it can apply to majority, except that the context of the passage does not necessarily merit a “strict” democratic voting process; yet where the entire congregation knowing the sin and understanding the right doctrine for remedy, refutes it collectively, and restores in the same manner.

Blessings my brother,
Chris

I know what I’m going to say has been said at least 50 times by various other people over the last few months, but your example makes me wonder again exactly how someone’s or some church’s faith or belief makes your baptism valid. Isn’t your baptism a testimony of your faith. Then what does the faith of the baptizer or church of the baptizer have to do with it.

“Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.”

I think there are a few problems with the system you have described:

1. If your group of elders becomes corrupt, there is no way for your non-elders to remove your elders from office. Corrupt elders cannot be trusted to do the right thing (to remove themselves from office).

2. In times of church conflict, I suppose it would be possible for your elders to subjectively determine the majority opinion without an objective vote if there was a very large majority on one side. If members were fairly evenly divided in their opinions, however, I think an objective vote would be required.

3. A subjective opinion is often not as accurate as objective data. Elders, being human, sometimes subconsciously hear what they want to hear. If the elders want to build a new building, for example, they may remember the positive comments but subconsciously forget negative comments. Also, if the members know that the elders want to build a new building, the members may not be willing to voice their true feelings (opposition) unless there is a secret ballot. Without such a secret ballot on a sensitive issue such as an expensive building project, the members might feel that the project was forced on them without their consent, and they might vote with their pocketbooks in a negative way after construction has begun.

You said,

“I would hope the BF&M defines democratic as Webster states ‘appealing to’ or ‘relating to’ the broad masses, instead of a strict majority vote to establish the validity of the system that would tend to proffer itself to the power of the vote, potentially ushering in heretical ideas or fanciful campaigns.”

I have the four-inch-thick Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. The definition about the “broad masses” is the third definition given for the word “democratic.” The first definition is: “favoring, characterized by, or based upon the principles of democracy.” Under “democracy,” the first definition is: “government by the people: rule of the majority.”

I don’t see how a decision would appeal to the broad mass of people (the majority) in the church if they would vote against that decision. I believe that democracy implies the priority of a majority rule:

“On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.”

From “Principles of Democracy: Majority Rule, Minority Rights”
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm

You mentioned 1 Timothy 5:17: “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” (NASB)

John Hammett of SEBTS commented on the verse:

“The idea that the elders rule the congregation is questionable. The key text used to establish the rule of elders is 1 Timothy 5:17. The word translated as ‘ruling’ in that verse (prohistemi) can bear a variety of senses, from ruling to managing to directing. Consideration of the whole of New Testament teaching on the nature of spiritual leadership would suggest that elders are not to rule so much as ‘lead the church into spiritually minded consensus.’ Baptists have argued that the responsibility of elders reflected in this text is not so much ruling as directing; that is, their function is more ‘moral and executive rather than governmental and judicial’ and thus more in keeping with congregationalism than Presbyterianism. . . . The division of the elders into teaching elders and ruling elders, characteristic of most Presbyterian forms of polity, is also a debatable point. It is based primarily on one verse, 1 Timothy 5:17, and is undermined by the requirement that all elders be ‘able to teach’ (1 Tim. 3:2). This verse is far too slender a basis for distinguishing two types of elders.”

Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 142-143.

The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson commented on 1 Timothy 5:17:

“Especially those who labour in word and teaching (malista hoi kopiontes en logoi kai didaskaliai). Either those who work hard or toil (usual meaning of kopiao, 2Ti 2:6) in preaching and teaching (most probable meaning. See 1Ti 5:18) or those who teach and preach and not merely preside (a doubtful distinction in “elders” at this time). See Tit 1:8.”

I agree with Hammett and Robertson that all elders taught and preached at that time. We know from 1 Timothy 3:2 that overseers had to be able to teach, and we know from Titus 1:9 that the overseer had to hold “fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” The ability to teach and preach was a qualification for being an elder/overseer/pastor.

You also indicated that you believe that no vote was involved in the final stage of church discipline: “That is never a vote….unless someone completely misunderstands the command.”

We see in 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 that the “majority” of members at the church in Corinth were involved in the final stage of church discipline and loving restoration of an errant member:

“Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.” (NASB)

David Garland commented on the disciplinary procedure described in the passage:

“Paul had asked them to hand him over to Satan ‘so that the sinful nature [lit., ‘flesh’] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord’ (1 Cor 5:5). ‘To deliver to Satan’ means simply to put the man out of the church and into the world where Satan reigns. . . . Paul wants him expelled from the fellowship in hopes that the shock would force him to change his fleshly orientation. Now that the individual has repented, Paul worries that they not allow Satan to gain advantage (2 Cor 2:11). Satan has had him long enough; Paul wants him forgiven and restored or excessive sorrow might overwhelm the man. . . . Paul’s concern about the punishment of the offender presents the picture that church members presided as judges over the person involved and pronounced a sentence. . . . The reference to the majority therefore implies that not all concurred with the action and may reveal that the church is split. . . . The majority rules.”

Garland, “2 Corinthians,” vol. 29 in The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 122-126.

Thus, because the majority and the minority favored different actions, and because the church succeeded in punishing the man (the majority’s position), we must conclude that the majority ruled. If it was not perfectly clear which side had the majority of people, then an objective vote would have been required to determine which side had the majority of people.

Some people might argue that the church did not make an autonomous decision and that the majority of people in the church were simply coerced by Paul. Garland, however, refuted this view:

“Paul had no intention of coercing the Corinthians to fall into line because that would defeat his purpose to develop churches capable of making mature Christian decisions on their own without constant supervision (see 1 Cor 6:1-6). To keep the situation from creating an irreconcilable rupture, he retreated. . . . Paul’s wisdom in taking this tack was vindicated by the Corinthians’ positive response. They rallied to Paul’s defense and chastised the guilty person.”

Garland, 125.

In regard to Matthew 18:15-18, the church listens, and then it speaks. Like a jury the members hear the evidence and then act. In order for church members to act as one, and especially when there is not total agreement, a vote must be taken, and the majority rules. These days, the procedure must be formalized in writing to avoid lawsuits. Craig Blomberg commented on the passage:

“Christian disfellowshipping must have two components to it. Primarily, it means not allowing someone to participate in public, corporate fellowship with the church. . . . But in light of Jesus’ consistent compassion for pagans and tax collectors, surely he must also want Christians, individually, to continue to reach out to these people and call them to repentance. . . . In an age in which churches can be sued for disciplining their members unless procedures have been stated in writing and disseminated and explained to all the congregation, it is imperative to think carefully about how to implement Jesus’ instructions.”

Blomberg, “Matthew,” 279-280.

This final stage of discipline is a crucial function of the entire church. The decision is not to be made only by the leaders of the church; rather, it is to be made by the assembly/church. The local church must carefully weigh the evidence and carefully gauge the opinion of the majority of its members. A formal vote will be required in many cases. This formal, objective vote removes any subjective elements and does not allow the accused to say that the accuser is acting alone or with only a minority of members. The vote provides proof to the accused that the majority of members agree with the decision to lovingly punish him.

But what does it say about this local church that they called a pastor who may not have even been saved? Because it had the name SBC and it was a local church, you think it was valid?

Do you not see the problems inherent in your baptism beilefs? Gracious me, in the view here, a church could be made up of unrepentent murderers twisting the Word in every sermon but baptisms would be considered valid because they called themselves Baptists and were in a local church.

In other words, they had the right ‘titles’. My question is this: Would the Holy Spirit consider that a church in the true sense of the Word.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify how I believe scripture reveals these actions of the members of the body of Christ.

Your first question,……………….
“Do you disagree with the BF&M when it states, “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes”?
Yes, I do agree with the BF&M statement whereas the democratic processes are “aligned and defined biblically”, but not governed “politically or socially”. I would hope the BF&M defines democratic as Webster states “appealing to” or “relating to” the broad masses, instead of a strict majority vote to establish the validity of the system that would tend to proffer itself to the power of the vote, potentially ushering in heretical ideas or fanciful campaigns. It is possible to make the appeal or relate to the entire inclusiveness of the congregation and maintain “democratic” processes. I will be the first to admit that “democratic processes” is an unfortunate choice of words that can quickly confuse the biblical with the political….especially in an American culture.

Second question,………………….
“Does your congregation ever vote on anything?”
Yes, our congregation is ultimately the final say, as they vote with their spiritual giftedness. I’ll explain that more in question #3.

Third question,……………….
“Do your church leaders have the final say on all the important decisions, such as choosing church officers and performing the final stage of church discipline, or do the members of your congregation have the final say (by means of a majority vote) on such important decisions?”

Mike, I believe this to be an excellent question and really does point to how we (our local gathering) conduct ourselves in the body of Christ. For instance, as we planted our church in Hermitage, we began evangelizing the area (about 1900 addresses) with two Pastors, several men and women teachers and their families. As God continues to add to our numbers, we make decisions together, but in the following order. The Pastors (Elders) are responsible to “rule well” …..

1Timothy 5:17 “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”

We do not pay our elders with money, but we do give them double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching (We would certainly pay them if they needed money to sustain them) furthermore the entire congregation would be fully involved in the decision to provide for these men as they lead the church. So the Elders preach, teach and plan with the members of the body in a variety of ministries to which they are gifted.

We have one woman that leads and plans missions for our support of a church in the Kibera slums in Nairobi, Kenya. The Leadership, along with those involved with the mission make decisions together and then we execute. Many times a vote is made very informally, because as we pray and plan and do things for the mission, God leads and we are in one accord. We rarely, if ever, have people that are at odds with the direction we are moving, because there is a deliberate effort to demonstrate the spiritual giftedness of the individuals involved in the ministry.

On the church discipline front,….I believe the reasons that church discipline is so rare within the SBC, is that a great many churches are not at all understanding of the process and the reason for the process. The entire reason for church discipline is to “bring someone back into fellowship” sooner than later. The final stage of church discipline is bringing “it” not “him/her” before the church. The third stage of church discipline is not some sort of “vote me in” or “vote me out” proposition (many view it that way). If you read the scripture and understand it properly, the third level is an even greater appeal to be reconciled to the church.

Matthew 18:15-18 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. (16) “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. (17) “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (18) “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

A plea from the members is for the individual in sin to be in right fellowship, humbly, and with amazing love. We are to treat them as a Gentile or Tax collector,..meaning to lavishing love them with the peace of the gospel…because the veil has been torn and there is no longer a dividing wall of separation. Plead with your brothers and sisters that continue in sin to cling to Christ and be loved by the church family like never before. That is what it means to bring a brother or sister before the church. You expose the “deed”, and “lavishly love the individual” like never before. That is never a vote….unless someone completely misunderstands the command.

Blessings,
Chris

1. Do you disagree with the BF&M when it states, “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes”?

2. Does your congregation ever vote on anything?

3. Do your church leaders have the final say on all the important decisions, such as choosing church officers and performing the final stage of church discipline, or do the members of your congregation have the final say (by means of a majority vote) on such important decisions?

Sorry for the quick typing error’s…. meant to say in the first paragraph…

Paul makes that distinction very clear in all his letters to the churches,… and Christ makes that distinction intensely to Peter before his ascension to the Father.

Blessings,
Chris

The church herself will never cease to exist (whether in heaven or on earth), only the work of the church may vanish on earth if Christ is not the head of those that assemble to worship, praise, fellowship and disciple. Less legislative, more Christ empowered. Paul makes that distinction very clear in all his letter to the churches and intensely to Peter before Christ’s ascension to the Father.

Sometimes we are quick to forget what “feeding” the sheep “is”,… compared to “cloning sheep”. One of the last great teachings of Jesus to his disciples was “feeding”, not cloning (achievement based theology). Say for instance when a Pastor “feeds” the sheep, the sheep are spiritually ready to obey (Hebrews 13:17) because they understand that the shepherd is looking out for their best interest and giving them sustenance with substance (Christ/the gospel). On the other hand, if the Pastor is more interested in “cloning sheep”,…in other words…. that they have the right words to say, fall into line with an accomplishment based system, are members by achievement opposed “to adoption”, then the cloning method becomes the norm and the shepherd is dispensable. In a strict democratic process, we see the dispensing of shepherds by the congregation as the norm because if follows an achievement based outcome,…. and some even call this dispensing the “will of God”.

Erickson’s democratic thesis is not convincing, nor is it actually biblical. And please hear me out….,the reason a strict democratic process fails is because all members of the body “should be involved in the work of the church”. A strict democratic process never allows that to happen and ultimately is realized by church splits for the wrong reasons. I would submit that a great many churches that following strict democratic processes, miss the teaching of Jesus altogether, and form a church government that is combative to the very message presented to Peter by the head of the church, Christ.

Blessings,
Chris

The BoT have enacted policies that many of their leadership on the field would be in disagreement with. In the case of a person’s private prayer closet, and or praying in tongues, THE leader of our IMB Dr. Rankin, would be in personal disagreement, would he not? The Lifeway report by Stetzer and his staff found that a majority of Southern Baptists would be opposed to this policy. The policy related to baptism and the faith of the one the being baptized and the local church…even more in dispute.

My friends when it comes to these policies, loyal, Bible affirming Baptists are in disagreement…and brilliant, theologically conservative, baptist scholars with a high view of Scripture, have arrived at different positions for many years.

And yet, we are basically being told “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” Really? Case closed?