Acts 29 and Southern Baptist Polity

Adam

Yes, but also that the responsibilty for doctrine and financial matters ultimately rests with the church is part of being elder led. Pastors lead in those matters, they don’t govern.

Scott Douglas,

You say Robin did his homework. Then, you speak from what can only be assumed to be your personal experiences with Southern Baptist church polity thus far to counter what he has said.

Robin was simply comparing the difference between Acts 29 and the SBC BF&M.

Then you really go astray by reading into Robin’s post as assumed motive on his part by saying, “I think the greater agenda here is to “hate” on anything Driscoll or A29,….”

In the very beginning of his post Robin stated that the motive to which you have accused him is not his purpose. Now, you are either calling Robin a liar relating to his motive or you poorly read his post. I trust it is the latter.

Also, you challenge him to be building “bridges” with Acts 29. The purpose of his post is to show a difference between the two for any and all to read the post to consider.

As far as building bridges is concerned; Would it not be easier to “build bridges” from a well informed position than one of ignorance as to the differences in the beginning and then later have second thoughts?

cb

Scott

For your first question, I currently serve in a church that is pastor led with church governance. That is not to say we are perfect, but the fault does not rest with the polity, but with us when we abandon Christ and seek our agenda. The same thing is possible under an elder governed situation.

Second, As I stated in the post, I have no issue with elder led situations. The problem is elder governed.

Finally, I don’t “hate” Acts 29. One should be able to disagree with anothers polity without hate being brought into the equation.

Robin, let me make it clear that I prefer traditional, democratic Baptist polity, and that I would neither pastor nor be a member of a Baptist church with elder governance, a la the Presbyterian system. But I have to agree with Scott here. What we do in our traditionally governed churches can be called “democratic” in that all members have an opportunity to be involved. But in reality, most Baptist churches struggle to have enough members at business meetings to have a quorum and govern at all–unless word gets out of something “big” or “controversial” is going to take place. At best, it means our churches are actually governed by a democracy of the “hard core” of the church, generally those who come whenever the doors are opened. At worst, it gives opportunity for special interest groups to wield power over an actual majority.

Furthermore, I think those in elder-governed churches would say that their congregation does have the last word through their elected representatives, just as people in a republic would say they rule the country. It is just through a republican-type polity rather than a democratic-type one, but either way, the final power (humanly speaking, of course) is still vested in the people.

John

Brother Robin,

Thank you for this well focused post.

As I said in the previous post on the subject, this difference in confession (discovering what ruling means) is the main ingredient of any disagreement that may be had with ACTS29 when you compare the understanding of “ruling” with that of those cooperating in light of the BF&M. Even when the BF&M did not contain “democratic processes” in its earlier version (in my opinion much clearer, less wordy), it is clear that each individual in the congregation is esteemed.

The Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy exposes the lynchpin to this argument, when he said…. 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.

The structure of this statement is current to past tense,…in other words men who are and have ruled, are and have made right doctrinal calls, are and have rightly divided the word, are and have shown impeccable character, are and have taught well, are and have spent great amount of time in preaching and teaching, etc. The ruling is not treated as “governing” or “ruling” in the sense of bringing something out… as a working smaller subcommittee might attempt to do representing the whole. Yet, the Elders do stand and are recognized as those men that have already done all of these Godly things,… thus they are qualified to lead and remain overseers in this mission established by Christ. It is unfortunate when a plurality of Elders miss or reinvent the Timothy passage to mean simply another level of voting (a subcommittee, on behalf of the all), when the Leaders should actually be demonstrating leadership (current – past tense) in order that the congregation is more able with use of their instrumental gifts to affirm and understand the Word of God as they are members one of another. The result then is a mirror of Acts… Act 15:22-23 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas–Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, (23) and they sent this letter by them, “The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.

I have good friends in the ACTS29 network and will continue to cooperate with them where we are able. Even though the ACTS29 covenant may reflect a strained representation of “ruling”, the churches I know of reflect the grace of God and the mission of Christ. I am not as quick to judge their “”motives and/or “lack of integrity” based upon words written on a website or piece of paper. That is truly not the test of their resolve to serve Christ. Maybe they can revisit the interpretive value of “ruling” and bring the words more in line with what I know of their actions… of the men I know that are involved in ACTS29.. is God honoring.

To make a comparison,….even though many within the SBC do not understand “democratic processes” (since the church is not a democracy), I do not impugn their integrity, but continue to teach the biblical doctrine of “favor and affirmation” while at the same time cooperating with them.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris

My last remark for awhile. I did not declare that those with Acts 29 lack integrity. I said, ” For church governance, you either agree with the BF&M or you agree with A-29. There is no compromise between the two statements. To receive funds from both agencies, while affirming both covenant statements is either dishonest or shows a clear lack of ecclesiastical perception and grounding.”

I do not deal with the entire Acts 29 network of church planters. Only those who affirm two statements that contradict each other.

Chris,

I think you have made a statement here that we all need to consider prayerfully:

“Maybe they can revisit the interpretive value of “ruling” and bring the words more in line with what I know of their actions… of the men I know that are involved in ACTS29.. is God honoring.”

All of us must always remember (And I don’t always do it and I get in trouble when I don’t) that any document that has its source of origin from the minds and hearts of men will be, in some way, flawed. This will be true of the Acts 29 documents and the BF&M of any edition as well.

For this reason we must all remember that the Scripture is the only document in human existence that is without flaw in any way. The reason is simple. The Bible has the perfect and Holy God as its Author and Primary Source.

May we all strive to make all of our cooperating documents for working in the Kingdom of God more and more compatible with the Holy Word of God. But, let us always remember that our primary source for any and all work in the Kingdom must be the Scripture, else we fail miserably in our endeavors.

cb

Chris,

I do want to say something for clarification.

I do believe with all of my ability to understand the Written Word of God by faith, seeking enlightenment from the Living Spirit of Holy God, that Baptist ecclesiology is more near a biblical ecclesiology than any other in human existence.

cb

Chris

You have always shown yourself as a man of integrity, IMHO. I have enjoyed our interaction in the past as I do now. With that said, let me correct one thing in your comment above, I have not questioned anyone’s motives (IOWs, the why of accepting money and agreeing with both statements) in this post. If you will notice, I leave the door open for a lack of ecclesiastical perception and grounding.

What I have questioned are the actions of those who would sign on to two contradictory beliefs while understanding that the beliefs contradict one another. Are we not told to test the spirits (1 John 4:1), which would not only include matters of doctrine, but of actions also?

I am like you, it is not my intent to impugn anyones integrity if they don’t have a clear understanding of the differences in the Acts 29 covenant and the BF&M. But these differences should be brought to the attention of those who accept money from both funding networks and a decision should be made as to either Acts 29 or Southern Baptist when it comes to planting churches. If with clear knowledge, they stick with both, then it is a matter of integrity.

In fact, I wonder if Acts 29 would accept a church that was not elder governed, but congregationally governed. To me they would need to stand up and say this polity is not acceptable to their covenant agreement. Let’s put the onus on Acts 29, how can they cooperate with Southern Baptist church planters that sign a confession which contradicts their own covenant? And if they accept Southern Baptist church planters that affirm a contradictory church polity, where is their integrity? Trust me, those who formed Acts 29 knows theirs and ours ecclesiology.

Questions to ponder.

Robin,

Are you serious? You would preach at a boot camp even though you could never plant a church through the boot camp you are teaching? Please…

Robin,

If I unerstand you correctly, you are saying there is a formal differrence between the BF&M and A-29 documents (confession, civenant, whatever); and that because there is a formal difference, there is a contradiction between the two. Is this a fair assessment of your position?

While I would agree there is a formal difference, I (and I think a few others) would suggest that the functional or operational differfence between the two is less, perhaps much less, that the formal one. I have to wonder if the difference then does not become a distinction without a difference, and that consequently, if affirming both is not less a contradiction than you suggest. You wrote, “To receive funds from both agencies, while affirming both covenant statements is either dishonest or shows a clear lack of ecclesiastical perception and grounding.” Since some people regard functional differences as of more importance than formal distinctions, is there not a possible third alternative?

John

A couple of things come to mind about all this:

The Preamble to the Baptist Faith and Message says that any group of Baptists can get together and publish their own statement of faith. I’m presuming that’s an allowance for differences in beliefs on certain matters, while still being in friendly cooperation.

If A-29 were to publish their own statement, as a group of baptists, and include the biblical reasoning behind elder rule, would that put them outside the boundaries (which I’ve not seen defined) of “friendly cooperation”? I ask that because, if it doesn’t, then why not labor together with them as brothers?

What I don’t recall in scripture is anything that would lead me believe a church with 1400 members who never come, and probably 750 nobody can even find, would be governed by those who never attend, were they to show up for some controversial meeting.

And yes, I’ve seen that happen.

(Sorry if this opens a whole big can of worms.)

(No I’m not….)

Sorry. Hit publish inadvertently. For clarity, do you think elder leadership/governance (I realize you may not use those terms interchangably) is completely incompatible with congregational authority? If so, how much must the congregation be involved in decision making? How much “leadership/governance” is allowed to a pastor or staff member? Must a church have weely business meetings? I’m pushing you here a little because it sounds like you are advocating a “pure and total democracy” approach to governance.

Brother Robin,

Yes, you and I are in agreement vastly more than any small disagreement, if any really. And I believe this question of polity is a real and present potential and unfortunate wedge that when fully understood can cause some consternation between “conventions” if you will.

Although I would be a little cautious, since when John is speaking of “testing the spirits” he is very specific concerning the test. I don’t think you are, or would want to move our ACTS29 brothers into the category that John reserves for those separating Christ from Jesus (anti-Christ) in his first potent epistle. I would think that the righting of doctrine concerning the “meaning of ruling” will probably move more along the lines of Apollos with Priscilla and Aquila.

But, as I have always said, “polity” and how that exists among the churches is a fair question to raise and discuss, because when money begins to be taken up for ministry there will be questions that need real answers.

Blessings brother,
Chris

Bob,

This isn’t about Acts 29 having the right to determine what they will believe and confess. Of course they have that right, and no true Baptist would say otherwise. There is no requirement for a church to affirm the BF&M in order to be a cooperating Southern Baptist church.

What it is about is the contradiction between the two statements, and the issue that presents specifically to those receiving funds from NAMB. Robin’s church at one time was receiving these funds, and one of the requirements was that he personally affirm his agreement with the BF&M, which is entirely appropriate as that is the statement of faith adopted by the organization providing funds. But it would have been impossible for Robin to then simultaneously agree with the covenant of Acts 29, which lays out an entirely different form of church governance.

I also find it amusing that those who have actually come near to addressing the heart of the issue in this comment stream have sought to impugn the outworking of congregationalism in those situations where it is abused, but none have addressed that there is a clear conflict between these two documents as they are written. I suppose I should not be shocked by such a postmodern response…

Wes

Thanks. Sometimes these comments can become a little taxing at times.

This post is not about anyone’s right to form statements of their own. Again, in the post I fully affirm Acts 29’s right to do so. It is about church planters who affirm both contradicting statements concerning church polity and the problem that poses for them and the networking agencies.

Gentlemen

I feel like I am interacting with comments that I have either already addressed in the post, in a later comment, or actually have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I have a major project I need done by 11:59 pm on Monday. I will check back with comments later, so please forgive my absence.

God Bless

Robin

Wes,
My comments, for one, were certainly not intended to come across that way and I apologize for writing in such a way to breed such an inaccuracy. I, like a former poster, believe Baptist ecclesiology to be the most biblical. Yet does congregationalism really come down to a matter of only affirming the budget and staff? Does not congregationalism imply leadership? If not, they why is there a biblically prescribed office for elders and deacons? (by the way, has anyone ever seen a deacon board derail congregationalism?). The question is this: is the “governance” wording a fatal and unfortunate flaw in their statement for Southern Baptists or is there, with charity, a more compatie reading of the two docements. Perhaps with some minor revisions. I do not think the incompatible rhetoric is helpful, though. Every dually affiliated church I know of does uphold congregationalism while at the same time allowing their elders to lead.

Scott Davis,

Would not this comment by Robin clarify his position relating to your question?

““In Baptist polity, the elder(s) does not “govern” in matters of doctrine, but leads in the proclamation of the Word. The final authority under Christ rests with the Church.”

You stated you believe, as do I, that Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology (as near as humanly possible).

yet, we know there will be problems in the church governance, not due to a lacking in our ecclesiology, but due to a lacking in our members (us included).

We are sinners. We will flounder in our church governance just as we do in other areas of the faith.

Yet, we must strive to adhere to a biblical ecclesiology and settle for nothing less.

cb

Forgive the delay in responding back to my post early today. I had to get our yard mowed and it was extra difficult today.
I must say that I do find the timing of the increasing Acts29/SBC discussions very “interesting” given the nature of several motions at the 2009 SBC meeting. I did not mean to imply that anyone hates Acts 29 or Mark Driscoll, used that in a colloquial expression.
I do think that we are missing something that is a very distinct Baptist identifier, the autonomy of the local church. We cannot argue with a church that votes (yes congregationally) to align itself jointly with A29 and the SBC. Many prominent Southern Baptists have already joined them. Bruce Ware has preached at Mars Hill, Danny Akin has hosted a conference at Southeastern, Ed Stetzer has joined with them in many causes, and a whole generation of younger pastors are beginning to see that our “tribal identity” is less with an organization but more with an ideology.
I agree with Scott Davis that we must take notice of books like the Shack being bestsellers. And I must agree that there is room at the table for “Elder Led/Ruled/Goverened/Administered” and “Congregational Authority.” The authority does rest in the local church, and that is exactly what A29, the BFM and many of our evangelical brethren are doing. They are allowing each local church to make decisions. We unite on a voluntary basis, not out of coercion or guilt. As such, we can voluntarily align ourselves with groups with whom we agree. I do not believe SBC churches who align with A29 are in sin, liars, or hypocrites. If they are, then so are the men I have listed above.

Again, it isn’t helpful to make issues like this personal, as Scott Douglas has attempted to do. This post isn’t about Ed Stetzer, Bruce Ware, or Danny Akin, nor is about abuses of congregational church government. No distractions can take away from the fact that the two statements are contradictory and mutually exclusive. This doesn’t affect autonomous churches; it affects individuals who have claimed to be in agreement with both.

Robin,

You: “if that was the case then fine. It would be a matter of symantics. But the two areas they point to in their documents (Stewardship, Doctrine) shows that is not what they mean.”

My point is that before you declare A29 incompatable with BFM2000 (and you may be right that it is) you should find out if it is the case that their usage allows for elder rule or elder led. That is the whole issue, is it not? Moreover, it would not be a matter of symantics, but a matter of clarifying a position. It is a matter of charity.

You: “In Baptist polity, the elder(s) does not “govern” in matters of doctrine, but leads in the proclamation of the Word. The final authority under Christ rests with the Church.”

I agree! The question is, does their use of govern include a broad spectram of anything from leading (a synonym for govern) to ruling? Until this is determined, there is no proven incompatability and no reason to dichotomize being Baptist with being A29.

Again, you may end up being right, Robin. It might be the case that A29 and BFM2000 are incompatable on this point. But the evidence does not yet warrant the conclusion. I think charity demands assuming the best about any organization or person, which in this case, means further clarification before judgements are made.

Adam

Scott,

“Agree that most SBC church planters would have difficulty going along with A29.”

Thanks. You have gotten the point of my post. God Bless.

Adam

I have given two examples where the elders govern or rule in a manner not acceptable to the BF&M (Doctrine and Stewardship). Those are clear examples of Elders taking on a ruling/governing role rather than leading.

Of course, all this could be cleared up with someone from Acts 29 leadership stating that the churches in their network, by covenant, are congregationally governed under the Lordship of Christ and that the elders rule not as the final authority under Christ to form doctrines or make stewardship decisions for the church.

Adam,

Your quote from the covenant applies to their 10% required investment in church planting, and not to the requirement that the church be governed by elders.

Brother Alan,

The books you mentioned do give a decent view on Elders.

One thing that is also clear from the scriptural record, is that “Elders (plurality) who rule well” and “voting” are to mutually exclusive subjects to SBCer’s. One subject is very well known and practiced (many times to the extreme), while the other is ignored and feared (to the same extreme). I’ll let you guess which one is known very well.

I am hopeful that the ACTS29 and SBC are able to work with each other to the Glory of God.

Blessings,
Chris

Gentlemen,

If I discount our names, the dates, posting numbers, & salutations from the posting and comments above, I count 6578 words. It is not clear to me why such a lengthy discussion includes so few references to scripture. Thank you, Chris Johnson, for your attempts to reel in the crowd by helping us to focus on our guidebook.

Is the bible not our guide? Why would we argue over the differences between human-authored documents such as the “BF&M” and the “covenant of the Acts 29 network” ? Are we allowing ourselves to be blinded by those contemporary documents?

Robin, are we going too deep? Was you posting, “just about the money” or not?

I leave you with I Cor 1:10ff
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

Alan,

Did read both…still believe Baptist ecclesiology is the most biblical even with the inherent problem of Christians having a bent toward selfish rebellion while remaining in this natural body.

I know I am not Robin, but I wanted to answer you so you would not think I was dead. BTW, tell your pastor to call me. I want to ask him some questions about National Health Care, Attacks on pastors by a highly elected public official, and such things. He will know what I mean.

cb

Edgar

Thanks for your comment. This is about scripture in that a person cannot affirm both statements because scripture does not give two options when it comes to final authority under Christ. Scripturally it is either elder rule or congregational rule. Acts 29 has gone with elder and the SBC has gone with congregational.

Louis,

Your argument is good, but the question remains that if indeed a church did vote “to have elders and gave elders the governing authority”, be that church SBC, Acts 29, Independent Bible, etc., would it be governed by the most biblical ecclesiology?

Even with the inherent problems we have all experienced, is it not best to always strive to be as biblical in all things as possible?

cb

Brother Louis,

Robin is making a cogent argument concerning the way doctrine is handled. Let me try to explain, because I am a firm believer in a plurality of Elders in all the churches. Elders,… as many as can qualify in a local congregation are a tremendous gift of God for the churches and should be raised up intentionally (1 Timothy 2&3). I also believe that Robin has come to what I believe is a very good conclusion, even though the SBC is woefully shortsighted concerning Elders.

Robin said: “I do not for if they (elders) are governing in areas of doctrine and acting as the final authority concerning matters of doctrine, they have overtaken the church’s role as the final authority in these matters.”

Somehow there is a thought that if we have Elders,..we have solid doctrine and right authority. That is not really the case, nor is that supported by biblical evidence. Because the only way to have solid doctrine is to “study to show yourself approved” whoever you are so that the authority is always Christ (His Word). Listen to how the Apostle Paul put this into context for all of us concerning doctrine as he instructed the churches of Galatia…..

Galatians 1:6-9 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; (7) which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (8) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (9) As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Elders are stewards of the doctrine or message, but they are not the final authority as Robin is trying to convey. Many “qualified” Elders in the congregation is an obvious advantage for teaching, doctrinal clarity, and missions. But the Elder is not given the authority, not even others in the church…it is vested only in the Word of God. The Elders are commissioned to lead and with great and extreme patience to teach and encourage the congregation so that all can affirm that the Word of God and move to obey. That is a difficult task as CB has made clear.

So, it is not good enough nor appropriate for anyone that is adopted by the King to have less than all things in common (Acts 2:42…) In other words, nothing is given up, conversely Christ is adding to our faith as members one of another. Elders then are commissioned to teach so that ministry is well understood and affirmed by “all” (voting is a crude substitute for biblical affirmation…typical voting does not allow for patience and understanding). This is the doctrine of Elders that rule well (1 Timothy 5:17…)….not “ruling Elders” (policy based).

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Robin,

The reason that voting is such a crude way….is that it suffers from the MacDonald’s syndrome, political action, disunity of ideas and needs, etc…. So that when a vote is taken there is typically a good amount of folks polarized to one side or the other. I have been in that action more than I should have been in years past.

I finally learned some 10-12 years back that the biblical way is through building up, affirming, explaining, teaching, ….all the principles of Ephesians 4 if you will…

Ephesians 4:11-16 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, (12) for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; (13) until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (14) As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; (15) but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, (16) from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

Every joint supplies something of unity in the body according to the “proper working” of each individual part. It is the leaderships responsibility to shepherd with great patience so that the proper working is evident, and “all” the body affirms out loud (no secret ballots) that we are moving to the Glory of God. “Out loud” comes in many forms, so an up or down vote is not really good enough any more,…it must have favor with “all” the congregation. This takes some time for the congregation to understand….but as one man says in our congregation, if you choose to be a member here… “there is no way to be a wallflower”….participation is essential. This process of affirmation takes a long time, a lot of teaching, and a lot of patience. But it is worth it and rewarding because it causes the growth of the body…building up of itself in love.

Our church and the church plants we are involved in are debt free and will remain that way. This is critical, so that we and the other churches are able to minister in the most efficient and effective means.

If we went back to “voting” (the up or down method, democratic processes), we would be moving backward in a big way.

Blessings,
Chris

[...] Acts 29 and Southern Baptist Polity :: SBC Today sbctoday.com/2009/08/21/acts-29-and-baptist-polity – view page – cached Recently, Wes Kenney brought to my mind that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a church planter to affirm both the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) and the covenant of the Acts 29 (A-29) church-planting network, particularly in the area of church polity. The A-29 covenant … — From the page [...]

I can’t say I agree with you 100%, but I understand where you are coming from. Thanks for your patience and the dialog.

Chris,

What about posting the perspective you are talking about on SBC IMPACT some time? You might could even do a “part 1″ and “part 2″ or something. I’m assuming that you believe your perspective is congregational without the Democratic processes aspect to it. I would like to learn more about the dynamics you refer to and an unpacking of what “affirmation” looks like in the church you pastor.

I think you have my interest up:)

Brother Benji,

Yes, we are congregational and instead of using “democratic processes” like some use them, we have found the Apostles encouragement more profitable…Ephesians 4:2-3 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, (3) being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

I’ll try to think a bit on how to post something on the subject…. in the mean time we’ll keep working hard.

…………

Brother Scott,

I’m not an “SBC Today Leader”, but my goal is advancing the Kingdom of God and bringing unity as well. I do believe that we should strive for ways to get the gospel to the ears of as many as possible in the communities.

Christ doesn’t plant SBC churches or ACTS29 churches, He has prepared a field for those willing to “go” to the harvest within “His church” where He is the head, or He will remove their lampstand.

I do believe Robin is not trying to create disunity…He does bring up an important issue of unity that both you and I must be able to answer as a member of the congregation.

Blessings,
Chris

Could someone email Scott and ask for clarification of the elder issue? Again, there is a certain irony in opposing elder-rule when the bible uses precisely that terminology. If we also believe congregational polity is biblical, then congregationalism and elder-rule must be compatible.

1. Hooray for Acts 29! They recognize that ecclesiology is an important issue, that churches cannot be healthy without a commitment to pursue biblical ecclesiology, and that cooperative bodies of churches should make ecclesiology an important facet of their common cooperation.

2. Alas for Acts 29! I believe that they have missed an important nuance in biblical ecclesiology—that the very important role of elders does not entirely expunge the role of the congregation in seeking God’s will together with one another in prayer and in decision-making structures.

We Southern Baptists would do well to keep our convictions about biblical ecclesiology à la item #2, but learn to pursue them with the passion revealed in item #1. Church planting through NAMB and Acts 29 simultaneously would be impossible because of #2, but we still have much to learn from Acts 29 with regard to item #1 without compromising on item #2.

Jeff T,

Could this post be of a political nature? Yes it could be.

But, the author of this post, Robin Foster has said more than once, it is not. He made that plain in the post itself and then later in more than one comment as the thread progressed.

Thus far, Robin has remained true to his word as to his motives originally stated in the post and the content of every comment he has posted in the comment thread.

Therefore, I think you are in error to make a judgement as to Robin’s motives as you have here.

cb

BP has made it political. I think Robin has missed the boat, only those who share his views agree with him.

I do not think Tim Rogers post on the SBC & A29 holds water. However, I do think Robin Foster’s post here has merit. Apparently, at least to me.

I believe I have argued this in defense of Wade Burleson and I want to argue this in defense of Robin here now [and Wade and Robin do not exactly see eye to eye in their vision for the SBC].

Even if it is granted, for argument’s sake, that Robin has a bad “motive”, then that does not necessarily mean Robin is making a bad argument.

For example, if a seminary has liberal teaching and if someone has the bad motive of lusting for “political power” in accusing that Seminary of having liberal teaching, then the accusation is still correct even though the motive is bad.

There is such a thing as giving someone “ammunition” to work with.

Now, I am not accusing Robin of having a bad motive. However, even if he did, people still need to deal with his actual argument.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong here, but I think it is safe to say that Baptists are congregational. Baptists might have different nuances as to what it means to be congregational, but they are still congregational.

If a church congregation “voted” as a whole to become a Methodist church, then I do not think you can still call them a Baptist church. Maybe they became Methodist through “Baptist means”, but once they became Methodist, then they are Methodist [or whatever they voted to become]. Right?

If A29 is advocating a perspective for their church plants that contradicts any form of congregationalism, then I do not think you can reconcile that with Baptist polity.

If A29 are not, then people should be open to learn more of where they are coming from.

Either way, I think people need to leave Robin’s motive out of this–1 Cor. 13:7.

Thomas

the covenant I used is linked in the post. But I also believe that the one you reference may have been recently changed. Either way, there is a discrepancy in the documents.

I do believe there is a difference between elder led and elder ruled churches. I believe that Baptist polity would allow for a church which was elder led but congregationally governed. I currently pastor a church with this kind of structure. IMHO the plurality of elders protects both pastors and congregation from some of the abuses of power which have characterized SBC life in some “single pastor model” governed churches. I am convinced that plural eldership is biblical, healthy, and not inconsistent with Baptist polity as long as elders lead and don’t rule.

If the Acts 29 network does indeed demand “elder ruled” churches, then it is not in step with SBC polity and runs counter to the BF&M. Of course, this does not mean that autonomous SBC congregations cannot cooperate with Acts 29 planters or plants. It would represent some inconsistency for churches with a commitment to congregational governance to plant churches which did not.

Phil Netwon’s book Elders in Congregational Life has some valuable history and observations regarding plurality of elders in Baptist churches.

Kelly,

I agree with you completely about churches being led by a plurality of elders. In regards to elder-rule? What do you make of the biblical passages that use precisely that terminology?

My statement was…which I have tried to post several times to no avail…that a Presbyterian Church is ruled by it’s Pastors/Elders, and the people have practically no say in Church matters. That’s one of the main reasons that they are Presbyterian.

Baptist Churches are congregationally ruled, where the Pastor “rules” by leading, guiding, protecting, teaching, etc. But, the whole congregation determines God’s will for the Church.

I do not see how both of these could be true in a church, Jerad.

David

I think that is a fair reading of the word rule. And it illustrates my point that we can’t oppose elder rule or governance per se, without some unpacking of what is meant. I do find it ironic that mega-churches can claim to be congregationally governed when they have a microscopic say in the life of the church. Voting for elders, and the budget, is only a hair’s breadth of difference between what it appears ACTS 29 is advocating. As far as determining God’s will, it would seem the congregation of a mega has virtually no say in that process. Granted that is peripheral to the question of partnering with ACTS 29. I am not a fan of the mega church model.

Bill,

I,personally, would say that a Church that votes on the budget, and who elects the Elders, would be a congregational Church. I believe that would be enough. That’s just my opinion. And, you’re right. That is the way that most mega Churches are run.

But, my wife used to be a Presbyterian. What the Presbyterians do is not like the Mega Churches. It’s Elder rule. And, that seems to be what Acts 29 is saying by Elder rule. They seem to be advocating a Presbyterian form of Church govt.

David

Louis,
I suspect most people are not as interested in what they BFM says when we can go directly to Scripture.As Chris Johnson has done directly to you! I would be interested in your response to his Biblical point.

As long as the Baptist Identity crowd is asking Biblical questions I think its okay for Southern Baptist Genevan churches to be held accountable with ACTS 29 churches; to the Word of God. Even if they are “ruled” by former SBC executives,and current Lifeway executives.

The doctrine is Sola Scriptura….not Sola Baptura.

Semper Reformanda

Robert I Masters
from the Southern Baptist Geneva

Bill,
Ruling suggests the exercise of some level of authority. Certainly the New Testament attaches a level of authority to eldership. This exercise of authority is tempered by other passages which exhort elders not to “lord it over” the people of God. In addition, there is Acts 15 which indicates that elders and the church were called together to consider a critical doctrinal issue and render a decision. Matthew 18 indicates a congregational decision in the final step of church discipline. 1 Corinthians 5 supports this also.

So, I am suggesting that ruling must be viewed in light of passages such as these which suggest that elder “rule” did not mean a unilateral decision rendered by the elders alone without any congregational input in the process. I think this is similar to what guys like Dever and Newton would say.

Blessings,

Kelly

Rob:

I was addressing the point of this post – that is, whether Acts 29 churches are inconsistent with the BFM.

I certainly do not know a lot about Acts 29 churches, but suggested that the test of the BFM is whether the church is “governed by democratic processes”. That phrase is subject to interpretation and could include lots of different specific arrangements.

Some SBC churches use their deacons like a board of directors. Some give the pastor more power. Some vest most of the power in the committees that are elected, but then the committee makes the decision or a recommendation that for all intents and purposes is the decision, given the procedural set up of the church.

I would submit that most of these arrangements contain some form of “democratic process”. The BFM covers them all.

So, Rob, that’s what I was addressing. I was not trying to debate specific Bible passages trying to prove one form of polity as against another.

I will add that I did not really follow Chris’ logic completely regarding the verse he cited from I Timothy, and then describing how his fellowship operates. I agree with what Kelly Randolph said above about elders. I would not be comfortable with elders making big decisions without any opportunity for congregational affirmation. But I am not comfortable either with a “town hall” approach to church which is often destructive to the fellowship.

I agree that we are all subject to the Lord and the Word. But there may be differences in understanding about what the Word says in areas, and this is one such area.

Louis

Keith,

You sound like such a nice person. I know the guys here at SBC Today pretty well. I can tell you that they love truth, and they love the Lord, and they love the SBC. I can tell you that they are the real deal, Brother. And, their love for the Bible and the SBC is what stirs them to write what they do. Are they always perfect? No. And, I seriously doubt that you are, as well, Keith.

Now, there are a lot of things about the Acts 29 network that is concerning. The leader talking about sodomy and masturbation and using coarse language. A lot of the Church planters of Acts 29 believe that drinking alcohol is ok. And, then, there are the issues that have been brought up by the SBC Today fellas. Maybe they were reading an old list of qualifications and beliefs? Maybe they should have asked the leader of Acts 29 about the things listed about the network before writing? things that looked troubling to them, and to me? Maybe so. But, these men in here are not the bad guys that you make them out to be.

Also, Keith, it does look like SBC leaders and people of influence are starting to buddy up with the Acts 29 network. And, I have heard people saying that the SBC should join with them and 9 Marks and other Church planting networks. That is concerning to a lot of us… if those networks are gonna be doctrinally in line with the SBC, or not. Because, the fellas in here, and me, are very concerned about doctrine. We want to start Churches that are sound in doctrine. Churches that believe the Bible, and hold to the clear teachings of the Scripture. Dont you?

David

VolFan, are you suggesting that the churches planted under A 29 are started by people who dislike doctrine? Be honest… Isn’t this whole movement simply rooted in the fact that many people in the SBC don’t trust/like Mark Driscoll? Isn’t it a coincidence that all this discussion comes after, as Dr Mohler described it “in our crankiness we attacked people who weren’t even there” at the SBC meeting?

If we can agree that this is simply “We Hate Driscoll” talk then we can move past it. We do not have to agree with everything someone believes in order to partner with them. And by aligning ourselves with both the SBC and A29 we are not forsaking doctrine in order to visit the liquor store.

I would commend those in Acts29 for being passionate about church planting. There is 99.5% of agreement between the majority of Southern Baptists and the majority of Acts29 church planters. When we turn the guns on each other we allow the Enemy free reign.

You don’t have to support them financially, but don’t chastise those who do out of liberty of conscience. We love doctrine and we love Truth, and we believe in engaging culture for Christ for the sake of the redemption of men. I am not an Acts29 member, but I do pray for them and the work they do. And so should you.

Scott,

No, I am not saying that people involved with Acts 29 dislike doctrine. What would make you think that? They are very much into doctrine, of which I am glad. I appreciate that about them. But, before the SBC partners with them, or with any one else, then we need to know if they believe in sound doctrine…doctrine that Baptists hold to…the clear teachings of Scripture. Dont you agree? SB’s are congregational. We dont believe in Elder ruled Churches like the Presbyterians. We believe in Believers Baptism. We dont baptise babies like the Presbyterians. We believe in baptism by immersion, which a host of other types of Churches do not. We believe that tongue speaking is not unknown, ecstatic utterance like some Pentecostal types believe in. And, there are many other doctrines that we would want to know that the other groups believe before we could join with them.

I took Robin and Tim’s posts to be concerns with Acts 29 about some of these doctrines. And, nobody here hates Driscoll….good grief, Charlie Brown. But, some of the things that he says and does and believes in…as a leader of Acts 29….does make people in the SBC concerned about Acts 29….yes, it does.

And, Scott, once again, nobody is turning the guns on Acts 29. God bless them. I rejoice for any good they do for the kingdom of God. And, I believe that Robin and Tim would amen what I just said. In fact, I believe they did say as much in the post by Scott Gordon about Driscoll on SBC Today. But, the issue here is about partnering with them…it’s about the SBC joining with them in Church planting in some way. So, take a chill pill and calm down, Brother.

David

Keith,

Do you not think that the GCR might include partnering with Acts 29 Church planters to start Churches? Where Namb is asked to give to help an Acts 29 Church start? I do see people saying things like this. Yes.

And, Keith, if a Church planter, who is getting money to start a Church by the Acts 29 network, wants his Church to be SB, and it can say that it believes Baptist doctrine, then of course I can support him wanting to be a SB Church…to be a part of the SBC. If he wants to be Presbyterian, and wants to be a part of the SBC, then no.

David

Let me also clarify another mistaken idea.
The Acts 29 Network – as in some organization in a building in Seattle – does NOT fund A-29 church planters. Churches within the A-29 network help one another. WeI have – by God’s grace – received $2,000 as a one time gift from an A-29 church. They are non-denom.
We (New City Church) have given to help meet the needs of several churches. Baptist and non-denom. We give directly to the church in need – not to ‘headquarters.’

You really don’t know how A-29 works?
Do you guys really write so much and know so little?
Are you serious? WOW
Start Here David – http://acts29network.org/plant-a-church/faq/

If there is something unclear, I will gladly help you with it.

I am not sure how you define 5 point calvinist – there is debate even within Acts 29 on certain definitions. So – depending on the definition – no you don’t have to be a 5 pointer.
However, if I were a 5 pointer would that disqualify me from being a Southern Baptist?

Your picture of the network leads you to some wrong conclusions. The network is a network – not a denomination. A-29 is a group who shares some core theological and missiological convictions. The A-29 website offers a description of those. Outside of those essentials there are freedoms – Baptists can be baptist and Presbys can be presbys.
AGAIN – as a network of people who share certain missiological and theological convictions, we support one another in the network – HEADQUARTERS does not support financially. Acts 29 makes pretty clear that the network does not exist as a funding network. In order to be a member of the network that shares certain theological and missiological convictions, you must share certain theological and missiological convictions

Keith,

First of all, I had nothing to do with the writing of this post. I’m just a reader and a commenter like you. So, when you talk about yall writing so much and know so little…I have no idea what you’re talking about.

And, you dont know what a 5 point Calvinist is? Really? And, you’re saying that Acts 29 doesnt know, either? Well, how much of one do you have to be in order to be ok’d by Acts 29? And, Keith, there are several 5 point Calvinists who are in the SBC right now, and they are involved in the IMB and NAMB, as well. So, the answer to your question is, yes….maybe you know Dr. Mohler? He’s a 5 point Calvinist, and he’s the head of one of our seminaries.

And, Keith, stuff like this post? You have a problem with people having concerns and sharing those concerns? Do you have a problem with people who dont agree with you? And, may I ask what kind of Church do those “Non-Denom.” guys have? doctrinally?

David

Acts 29 Covenant (as of June 2009):

Acts 29 church planters and their elders covenant together according to the following essentials:
We agree that our church will meet all biblical requirements for elders, including that the church will be governed by a plurality of qualified male elders. (We believe that the local church determines how it is “governed” by its elders. Some are called elder-ruled and many others are elder-led like SBC/Acts 29 pastors JD Greear, Daniel Montgomery and others.)

Will there be any sort of apology or retraction concerning the misstatements here? Maybe a new blog post explaining a more accurate position?
As and SBC pastor, I am curious.

Brother Kieth,

Thank you for your comment in #115. You are forgiven and I personally did not read your comment in #114 as arrogant or prideful. You told us your heart in posting #114 and that is something only you can judge not anyone else. Thank you for your transparency.

As to your comment in #114, I do not believe there was any mis-quote of the covenant. The June 2009 date you give was not the covenant that we saw. We were told, by Brother Scott Thomas, that we had found an old covenant that has not been updated for our articles. However, it appears that Brother Scott used the same covenant with only one distinction in the giving percentages, and expresses the Leaders of Acts 29 understanding of the statement. He tries to soften the elder governed portion by pointing to a number of pastors known in SBC life. One pastor that I personally know is Pastor JD Greear. Pastor JD serves a church that was a traditional SB church when he became Sr Pastor. The church was congregational in their governance when he arrived. They had business meetings for everything. The Pastor and staff were given authority to make decisions for certain things but major decisions, (creating new staff positions, budgets, and filling volunteer positions) would come before the church to be approved by the church. Now we are told they are elder governed by Brother Scott. The Summit at Homestead Heights has not, that I am aware of, changed from a congregational governed to an Elder governed church. That is not something that has ever been publicly known here in NC.

Blessings,
Tim

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic that Mr. Foster uses the Baptist Faith and Message to argue that churches should not have leaders who make decisions and set doctrine? He uses the BF&M to argue that only Jesus is our authority? Not sure, but I am pretty sure a group of leaders from SBC life got together to write this and lead the convention to adopt it as our doctrinal statement.

Bro. Robin,
1) You continue to refer to Acts 29 as ‘THEY’ – I am an SBC pastor (for now) in an SBC Church (for now) and I am not THEY.
2) I was at a large SBC church on staff. Recently the issue of Calvinism came up. The matter of teachers and what teaching materials were going to be used did NOT go before the church as a vote. Elected elders in this historic SBC church discussed the matter of doctrine and theology and THEY made the call. THAT is how matters are REGULARLY handled. Should I provide the name of that church and others who operate that way so that you can have them removed?
OR
Are you using this as an opportunity to wrongly accuse the A-29 network?
3) I have a friend who planted an SBC church. They didn’t gather a group and then vote on the BFM – he said – we are baptist and follow the BFM – are you in or out?

I am done here. And perhaps done with the SBC

From the Preamble of the Baptist Faith & Message:

“Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.”

Therefore, if a congregation affiliated with the SBC desires to be elder-governed, they have the right to do so. Some might argue this goes against the “letter of the law,” but it certainly does not violate the “spirit” of the BFM.

It seems we have discussed this and the comments have become repetitive or they miss the point of the post. So I am moving on from this discussion. Thanks to all for the dialog.