Jim is helping me out here quite a bit in an odd way. When he said….

“What I hear Scarborough saying is that within the school system there are mechanisms of accountability for the actions or conduct of teachers, through a higher authority, ie, principal, school board etc.”

Yes, that is what I hear as well. But that is also the problem with respect to the church, not the solution. Some seem to transfer the perfection of what the church “is” to other agencies. So, if the church is easily swayed, which it can be, then it seems pragmatic to form an outside agency (schools) to keep it steady. This is simply a Jonah type move; instead of obeying God, he had a better idea to keep the peace and do God’s business with the right people. The church, with all its swaying, is still the only institution that is perfected on Christ. So, instead of stating the obvious… like, “its easier to control something else”. Why not return to how doctrine is perfected in the churches…. through prayer, restoration, right teaching, and God honoring leadership.

The church is much easier to restore than an outside agency or institution. A seminary for instance takes years and years to turn from poison doctrines being taught because of tenure, lack of biblical restoration as a principle, etc. The church on the other hand is restored immediately as she obeys the commands of Christ through restoration (Matthew 18). Again, it seems pragmatically plausible to think that the seminary can be controlled. But that typically is the control of a board, group of men, etc. (can be very good, can be very bad) Where the church is always in perfect control by the person of the Holy Spirit, we simply obey Him and His promises are true. As we return to Him in the context of the church, it is immediate restoration and healing.

Maybe the bottom line is that Scarborough has modeled the accountability within the church as being more difficult when compared to the accountability that can be controlled in the schools. I simply disagree with that principle, because the power of men cannot match the power of God. That defeatest type attitude toward the church moves us away from the real solution to restoring our congregations.

Blessings,
Chris

Thank you for the entire comment, especially this line…..

“Yes, Scarborough was absolutely correct. In the absence of elder rule and accountability, the false teacher is in control of the enterprise as long as the congregation is willing to go along for the ride.”

I am not doing a good job of explaining my discomfort with “some” of what Scarborough has penned, because I don’t disagree with what Robin or you have said (minor difference in the context of Paul’s letter to Titus). But, your assertion above is absolutely correct. The absence of a plurality of elder/pastors has made the CEO Pastor possible. And not only that,…the absence of godly men leading the church has allowed the church to “vote-in and approve” doctrines of demons (as Jude and the letter’s to Titus bring reminders). What the church needs is a return to men of God leading the church affirmed by all the congregation (some call this voting).

Also, when I remarked about the Holy Spirit being the teacher…I never detach that from the responsibility of leaders to act. So, I am certainly not saying that some mysterious power (as some would think of the HS) will magically make things better. The Holy Spirit is the only teacher in the church though.

Blessings,
Chris

Thank you for publishing these pieces. Dr. L. R. Scarborough message rings across the decades, perhaps more true than in his own time.

Regarding his comments from the first article:

“It is far easier for us to correct false teaching in our schools, because the schools are under the control of our conventions, than it is to correct false teachings in our churches, because the churches are independent and sovereign and you cannot reach the false teachers, even though they be the pastors of the churches, except through the members of the churches themselves.”

What I hear Scarborough saying is that within the school system there are mechanisms of accountability for the actions or conduct of teachers, through a higher authority, ie, principal, school board etc.

Scarborough’s following statement is near prophetic…”you cannot reach the false teachers, even though they be the pastors of the churches, except through the members of the churches themselves.”

Over the last ten years, the advent of the church growth movement has yielded hundred if not thousands of examples of church members privately pleading with their pastor to give up the merchandising of the pulpit to attract the “unchurched” and return to Biblical teaching and worship. These people quickly find out that they are marginalized, asked to leave, removed from positions of service, etc, at the hand of the CEO style pastor.

The Purpose Driven Church growth model advocates the concept of showing those who resist the “new way of doing church” to the door.

All without allowing the church member the opportunity to address the concerns to the church body.

Local church autonomy has been the excuse these pastors use for justifying “losing a few to gain more” in their “vision” of numerical growth.

One member resisting the pragmatism in the 21st century church doesnt stand a chance against such a pastor. But if the congregation was given the opportunity to hear the darkside of church marketing, the pastor would not stand a chance. But the CEO style pastor will use peer pressure, intimidation and manipulation to ensure that there is no public hearing on the matter.

Yes, Scarborough was absolutely correct. In the absence of elder rule and accountability, the false teacher is in control of the enterprise as long as the congregation is willing to go along for the ride.

Discernment is the responsibility of the church member. With all due respect to Chris’ comment regarding The Holy Spirit being the corrector of false teachers…Paul exhorted Christians to test the teaching, he warned of tolerating false teachers, etc.

Discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but if the Christian fails to put it to work, it will only grieve the Holy Spirit. Christians are charged to contend for the faith.

In Scarborough’s secong article, he provides examples of how this CEO style leadership manifests itself.

“This is an assumption of authority and partakes of the nature of a self-appointed ecclesiascism and this conduct greatly poisons the life of the church.”

The CEO style rule not only poisons the life of the church, it puts the church on a slippery slope of compromise. Just as is the case for any sin, if left unchallenged or accepted, it will only lead to death.

Thanks for the response, I do want to explore this further, especially the point on seminaries. I hope you can answer my other question concerning voting. Right now ministry is calling me to OKC.

Don’t give up on me, I enjoy this type of interaction.

Robin

To focus on the point I was trying to make. When Scarborough said…

“Since the churches through their teaching service are commissioned to teach the “all things” commanded by Jesus Christ, and since this instruction goes Sunday by Sunday and week by week into the lives of the young, how very important it is that these fountains of life be kept pure from the poison of erroneous and false doctrine. It is far easier for us to correct false teaching in our schools, because the schools are under the control of our conventions, than it is to correct false teachings in our churches, because the churches are independent and sovereign and you cannot reach the false teachers, even though they be the pastors of the churches, except through the members of the churches themselves. This gives great emphasis to the importance of the right training for our young preachers who are to be pastors of our churches.”

The liberal slant that I picked up on from his statement is that these “fountains of truth” (churches) “are” kept pure primarily by “controlled” teachings in our schools, since it is impossible for the convention of autonomous churches to have any impact on another. I guess I just disagree with that type of thinking because it is the seminaries that have been all over the map during the past fifty years. I just believe the church is the easier to correct and protect from false teaching because the Holy Spirit is the teacher and the corrector, not some school of thought.

Again, he may be trying to make another point…. because, I do agree with his statement that young pastors (and old ones alike) need right training. But, I would say that training is easier and more effective in and through the church, where seminaries are sometimes excellent supplementary education.

Blessings,
Chris

I would disagree that a voting system is the most efficient. It would be easier for a committee or one man to make the decisions. For example, I know if a deacon body in another church that has given the pastor the authority to remove anyone from church membership. That system involves one man deciding which would make it pragmatic and efficient. A system where the whole church comes together to pray and seek the Lord’s will and voicing that will through individual votes is quite time consuming if not unefficient.

I guess my question to you is, if not a voting system, what would you suggest that is biblical?

I do not disagree with you that the church, not some man or men (singularly) is where the authority is vested. So, that is really not my point here. And I agree with the contexts that you have brought forward. I would not leap completely into a voting system (democratic)though as the most efficient system to have the church affirm the scriptures and handle unruly folks (although it is pragmatic in a non-pejorative manner), yet the involvement of the entire church is essential for its edification.

Maybe I just misunderstood his phrase concerning the role of a seminary when compared to the church.

Thank you for the response,
Blessings,
Chris

Biblically, the only commands to remove or reject a person are given to the church for their action, not a single man. The context in Titus is Paul telling Titus to “Remind them” (3:1), with “them” being the church. Later, Paul says he wants Titus to “affirm” (3:8) what he is instructing Titus. The object of this affirmation is the church. Paul is telling Titus to instruct the church on their activities. The instruction to “reject” or “shun” a divisive man is an instruction to pass to the church for her action. Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, and even 1 John 4:1 (where the CHURCH is told to test the spirits) affirm this activity. In matters of discipline, the church is the one that exercises Christ’s authority, not a single man.

As discussed, Scarborough’s view has biblical support. I don’t understand your statement of his view being “liberal” as it is also the view of the Baptist Faith and Message concerning how churches come to decisions through a democratic process. In fact, these actions, as described by Scarborough, being governed by and under the control of the church, are not practical. It would be far easier and more practical for one man to come to these decisions. Yet, the church is commanded to not be practical, but submissive to the commands and will of Christ. Likewise, Paul tells the church in Rome to “be transformed” by the renewing of their mind so that they may know the good, acceptable and perfect will of God. (Rom 12:2) In matters of church discipline, ordination, etc.. Christ ultimately works through His bride, the church.

No problem, I hope I understand you correctly in my reply. :-)

I don’t have Internet at the house other than my iPhone, so my lengthy reply will be posted tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.

Robin