Your Church government ?

[the particular baptist]

Greetings brethren.

How is your local church run ?

 

[TimRout]

We are an Elder Ruled church.

 

[mlqurgw]

We have a single pastor but believe in elder rule with the pastor as the head. Ours isn't a big enough church to need more than just a pastor.

 

[the particular baptist]

Can you provide explicit and descriptive scripture where Christ does not hold His church accountable for teaching, doctrine, and discipline, but instead a single or plurality of elders ? Is Elder rule at least in part related to Federalism/Theonomy ?

 

[JohnDB]

The traditional model runs ours for any large church.

Deacons hold the final authority which is usually administered by the Pastor.
There is also a body known as the trustees. And where they are often the guys who have the keys and lock the doors...we have security that actually performs that.
There is also a lot of committees who research subjects and make reccomendations to the congregation via spokesperson. Often deacons are on these committees or chair these committees. (Personell committee etc) The pastor may ask the personell committee for a particular person to be hired...but that is it...He can't hire anyone himself.

Then there is politics....and I hate politics with a passion. Certain members of the Church seem to believe that they hold more influence than is their right to do so...heard too many stories about them coming into pastoral search committees and telling them what to do and how to do their jobs. (IE which guy to hire) They always seem to be in the role of trustee and/or deacon and/or on many of the committees.

Sometimes they are quiet...sometimes not so quiet.

I did attend an elder run church for a bit...kinda interesting. Deacons only served...

 

[the particular baptist]

The traditional model runs ours for any large church.

Deacons hold the final authority which is usually administered by the Pastor.
There is also a body known as the trustees. And where they are often the guys who have the keys and lock the doors...we have security that actually performs that.
There is also a lot of committees who research subjects and make reccomendations to the congregation via spokesperson. Often deacons are on these committees or chair these committees. (Personell committee etc) The pastor may ask the personell committee for a particular person to be hired...but that is it...He can't hire anyone himself.

Then there is politics....and I hate politics with a passion. Certain members of the Church seem to believe that they hold more influence than is their right to do so...heard too many stories about them coming into pastoral search committees and telling them what to do and how to do their jobs. (IE which guy to hire) They always seem to be in the role of trustee and/or deacon and/or on many of the committees.

Sometimes they are quiet...sometimes not so quiet.

I did attend an elder run church for a bit...kinda interesting. Deacons only served...

At your convenience would you provide the scripture proofs that are descriptive of deacons having final authority ? To me it is interesting to see the various ways baptists do church and why.

 

[JohnDB]

It has been a while since I have looked at it...

But I think it is a combination of Timothy, Titus, and Acts. (where the letter was drafted to the Gentiles)

I would have to drag it out and look at it...

But...neither you or I was around when they drafted the constitution/charter for this church. It was one of the early churchs here in Nashville area...been around for a long time.

I ain't looked at the thing either...only been a member here for a year at this moment...and I hate politics of any sort...most especially church politcs...I avoid it like the plague. (I avoid voting, committee membership, serving as a deacon or any sort of leadership role) I usually find a corner where hopefully I will go unnoticed and serve there. It seldom works...but I try

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

The traditional model runs ours for any large church.

Deacons hold the final authority which is usually administered by the Pastor.
There is also a body known as the trustees. And where they are often the guys who have the keys and lock the doors...we have security that actually performs that.
There is also a lot of committees who research subjects and make reccomendations to the congregation via spokesperson. Often deacons are on these committees or chair these committees. (Personell committee etc) The pastor may ask the personell committee for a particular person to be hired...but that is it...He can't hire anyone himself.

Then there is politics....and I hate politics with a passion. Certain members of the Church seem to believe that they hold more influence than is their right to do so...heard too many stories about them coming into pastoral search committees and telling them what to do and how to do their jobs. (IE which guy to hire) They always seem to be in the role of trustee and/or deacon and/or on many of the committees.

Sometimes they are quiet...sometimes not so quiet.

I did attend an elder run church for a bit...kinda interesting. Deacons only served...

Sounds exactly like the SBC church that I was a member of before.
The only difference is the roles of Deacons and the Committees were reversed. The deacon was a service position only...the Committees ran the church.

 

[the particular baptist]

We are an Elder Ruled church.

Pastor Tim, i realize and understand church planting pastors have apostolic ( small "a" ) authority in administrating and governing the church he is planting. At some point, after the founding Pastor/elders are gone, the church assumes a self governing form of congregationalism no ?

If not, what recourse does a congregation have, biblically, if the teaching elder is teaching something not entirely kosher, and all the elders agree with this less-than-biblical teaching. What then ? Under the Elder rule non-presbyterian form of government, does the congregation have a recourse if the teaching from the pulpit, mis-use of authority, funds, etc, occurs ?

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Pastor Tim, i realize and understand church planting pastors have apostolic ( small "a" ) authority in administrating and governing the church he is planting. At some point, after the founding Pastor/elders are gone, the church assumes a self governing form of congregationalism no ?

If not, what recourse does a congregation have, biblically, if the teaching elder is teaching something not entirely kosher, and all the elders agree with this less-than-biblical teaching. What then ? Under the Elder rule non-presbyterian form of government, does the congregation have a recourse if the teaching from the pulpit, mis-use of authority, funds, etc, occurs ?

This is why I think the presbyterian polity is biblical...it's about accountibility...and I am sure there was this type of accountability in Paul's time...he was above Timothy. Paul was Pastor Timothy's "supervisor" at least. It's biblical.
I'm not trying to derail this thread but just adding my 2 cents. I believe the RCC has taken this concept way way above what it was intended just to clarify as that I am not advocating an episcopate nor a papal polity.

 

[trentlogain2]

Monday poll results..


No, seriously. I don't know.

 

[mlqurgw]

Pastor Tim, i realize and understand church planting pastors have apostolic ( small "a" ) authority in administrating and governing the church he is planting. At some point, after the founding Pastor/elders are gone, the church assumes a self governing form of congregationalism no ?

You can't find congergational rule in the New Testament. God said that He would give His church faithful pastors after His own heart. Jer. 3:15 and Paul tells us in Eph. 4:11-12 that pastors are a gift from Christ to His church.

If not, what recourse does a congregation have, biblically, if the teaching elder is teaching something not entirely kosher, and all the elders agree with this less-than-biblical teaching. What then ? Under the Elder rule non-presbyterian form of government, does the congregation have a recourse if the teaching from the pulpit, mis-use of authority, funds, etc, occurs ?

If they are truly God's men it either will not happen or Christ will correct them or remove them. If you simply can't agree with a God called pastor you should leave quietly. Be careful that you do not bring an accusation against and elder without cause.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

You can't find congergational rule in the New Testament. God said that He would give His church faithful pastors after His own heart. Jer. 3:15 and Paul tells us in Eph. 4:11-12 that pastors are a gift from Christ to His church.

Exactly...the Church, nor the church(little 'c') is not a democracy IMHO.

 

[the particular baptist]

You can't find congergational rule in the New Testament.

I didnt say congregational rule. However, i can see descriptive passages that hold churches accountable for purity of doctrine, discipline, and conduct.

Then there is the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer;

1Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession...

As for exercising authoritarian rule, at least in the way pagans do, what do we do with Matthew 20 ?

Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

God said that He would give His church faithful pastors after His own heart. Jer. 3:15 and Paul tells us in Eph. 4:11-12 that pastors are a gift from Christ to His church.

Where does this give pastors and elders the authority to rule with no checks and balances ?

If they are truly God's men it either will not happen or Christ will correct them or remove them.

Does the Lord not use His body, the church to do this ?

If you simply can't agree with a God called pastor you should leave quietly.

I agree with this, however, is there scripture that states this ?

Is the church the congregation from which God calls elders, deacons, teachers, or is the church the leadership.

 

[TimRout]

Pastor Tim, i realize and understand church planting pastors have apostolic ( small "a" ) authority in administrating and governing the church he is planting. At some point, after the founding Pastor/elders are gone, the church assumes a self governing form of congregationalism no ?

If not, what recourse does a congregation have, biblically, if the teaching elder is teaching something not entirely kosher, and all the elders agree with this less-than-biblical teaching. What then ? Under the Elder rule non-presbyterian form of government, does the congregation have a recourse if the teaching from the pulpit, mis-use of authority, funds, etc, occurs ?

Hey brother,

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.

The Bridge Bible Church is my third congregation. My first church was a fairly typical Baptist group, with a Deacon's Board who directed the affairs of the church, and a voting membership who rubber-stamped most decisions and periodically inserted a few dictates of their own through a regular business meeting process.

My second church was "Classically Congregational" in that the members voted on absolutely EVERY decision, and the Deacons merely carried these out as instructed.

The Bridge, on the other hand, is entirely non-congregational. I am one of three coequal Elders who provide oversight and leadership to our church. In order to safeguard objectivity, the qualifications for Eldership at The Bridge are quite rigorous. For example, every candidate must pass an extensive interview process, often involving third-party members of our denomination from around the Province. Also, a candidate must pass a detailed theology exam -- both written and oral. He must also demonstrate a capacity to teach, have an exemplary personal life, an orderly family life, and may not be related (by blood or marriage) to any other presently serving Elder.

Now then, to answer your question: What recourse is left to a member who believes the Elders (all of them) are leading in an ungodly fashion?

1. Petition the Elders privately concerning your suspicions.

2. If that doesn't work, gather one or two witnesses who share your suspicions and share the matter with the church at a duly called business meeting. Though members cannot dismiss a sitting Elder, they can certainly choose to not re-elect him when his term comes due.

3a. In the Fellowship Of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada, one may appeal to the local Baptist Association Moderator.

3b. In other situations, one may always resign one's membership and depart the congregation.

3c. If one believes the Elders are acting illegally, one may contact Police or governmental revenue services.

To be perfectly honest, there are always people in our church who disagree with the Elders. They challenge almost everything we do. In the end, most persons of this ilk end up leaving (or being removed), though the Elders do not dismiss a member except for serious moral infractions.

If you want to know how we handle the Scriptural issues, by all means ask. But be forewarned --- it'll take me a while to get back to you. We're in the middle of September start up and I'm buried in work.

 

[the particular baptist]

Hey brother,

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.

The Bridge Bible Church is my third congregation. My first church was a fairly typical Baptist group, with a Deacon's Board who directed the affairs of the church, and a voting membership who rubber-stamped most decisions and periodically inserted a few dictates of their own through a regular business meeting process.

My second church was "Classically Congregational" in that the members voted on absolutely EVERY decision, and the Deacons merely carried these out as instructed.

The Bridge, on the other hand, is entirely non-congregational. I am one of three coequal Elders who provide oversight and leadership to our church. In order to safeguard objectivity, the qualifications for Eldership at The Bridge are quite rigorous. For example, every candidate must pass an extensive interview process, often involving third-party members of our denomination from around the Province. Also, a candidate must pass a detailed theology exam -- both written and oral. He must also demonstrate a capacity to teach, have an exemplary personal life, an orderly family life, and may not be related (by blood or marriage) to any other presently serving Elder.

Now then, to answer your question: What recourse is left to a member who believes the Elders (all of them) are leading in an ungodly fashion?

1. Petition the Elders privately concerning your suspicions.

2. If that doesn't work, gather one or two witnesses who share your suspicions and share the matter with the church at a duly called business meeting. Though members cannot dismiss a sitting Elder, they can certainly choose to not relelect him when his term comes due.

3a. In the Fellowship Of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada, one may appeal to the local Baptist Association Moderator.

3b. In other situations, one may always resign one's membership and depart the congregation.

3c. If one believes the Elders are acting illegally, one may contact Police or governmental revinue services.

To be perfectly honest, there are always people in our church who disagree with the Elders. They challenge almost everything we do. In the end, most persons of this ilk end up leaving (or being removed), though the Elders do not dismiss a member except for serious moral infractions.

If you want to know how we handle the Scriptural issues, by all means ask. But be forewarned --- it'll take me a while to get back to you. We're in the middle of September start up and I'm buried in work.

Hi Pastor Tim, thanks for taking the time to answer my question and i do have more some of which ill ask via private email, and its no hurry i can wait for answers.

You mentioned dismissing a member. How is this done by elder decision or the congregation ?

Are you familiar with Mark Dever's IX Marks, specifically the 9th mark of church leadership ? In what significant scriptural way would you disagree with the Elder led, Deacon served, Congregationally governed church model ?

 

[mlqurgw]

I didnt say congregational rule. However, i can see descriptive passages that hold churches accountable for purity of doctrine, discipline, and conduct.

Then there is the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer;

1Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession...

As for exercising authoritarian rule, at least in the way pagans do, what do we do with Matthew 20 ?

Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."




Where does this give pastors and elders the authority to rule with no checks and balances ?




Does the Lord not use His body, the church to do this ?




I agree with this, however, is there scripture that states this ?

Is the church the congregation from which God calls elders, deacons, teachers, or is the church the leadership.

I too wil have to get back to you on the questions you ask. We are in the middle of our conference and I am very busy and very tired. Please be patient and I will do my best to answer your questions.

 

[the particular baptist]

I too wil have to get back to you on the questions you ask. We are in the middle of our conference and I am very busy and very tired. Please be patient and I will do my best to answer your questions.

Thanks brother Ron, i appreciate it and i'll be patient.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

As for exercising authoritarian rule, at least in the way pagans do, what do we do with Matthew 20 ?

Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
.

This means IMHO that Jesus is saying to his audience the simple fact that the rulers of the Gentiles are "overlords" and they hold great power....it's not going to happen with you! (His audience). The great ones of this audience(the disciples I believe) must server you, and the leader will be your slave...ie, the one who serves your first. The Son of Man, Jesus didn't come to be served, but to be a server as our propitiation.
That very definition describes what Jesus was teaching about leadership for His cause...concerning Pastors..I believe it applies in the fact that it disproves a system of authority like the Papacy or even an episcopate overall, but I'm still confused as to it's literal application within the church.




Just my opinion I could be wrong.
I'll stop posting here now, I'm not a baptist anymore...I'm not used to it yet lol...thanks all.

Thanks for listening.

 

[TimRout]

Hi Pastor Tim, thanks for taking the time to answer my question and i do have more some of which ill ask via private email, and its no hurry i can wait for answers.

You mentioned dismissing a member. How is this done by elder decision or the congregation ?

Are you familiar with Mark Dever's IX Marks, specifically the 9th mark of church leadership ? In what significant scriptural way would you disagree with the Elder led, Deacon served, Congregationally governed church model ?

Well...since I haven't logged off yet......

1. How are members received/dismissed?
Though I'm not convinced our approach is the most biblically supportable, in an attempt to satisfy both Mt. 18:17 and Tit. 1:9, the members may vote to receive or remove an individual, but only with the permission of the Elders. In our church, the Elders alone control all nominations.

2. What's the problem with traditional Elder led, Deacon served, congregational polity?
My answer is: Possibly nothing. That is to say, it is possible to run a very godly church using such a model. But the truth is, virtually ANY governmental system can work efficiently when things are going right. It's when things start to go sideways that we find out whether we've lined up our biblical ducks correctly.

In the structure proposed, the Elders provide "spiritual leadership", while the Deacons generally provide "administrative oversight". This means the Elders teach, preach, and provide pastoral care, while the Deacons control the purse strings. If (as is usually the case) the Deacons are not beholden to the authority of the Elders, then they become the de facto leaders of the church. Have you ever heard the secular version of the Golden Rule? "He who has the gold, makes the rules!" Such systems of government are (quite obviously) unbiblical. And given that most larger congregations rubber-stamp the decisions of the Deacons Board, the Elders aren't really leading at all.

Now then, our church has Elders (who have final authority), Deacons (who follow their lead and cannot overrule them), and members (who vote on all the big stuff like the annual budget, election of Deacons and Elders, new members, etc). By preserving the authority in the office of Elder, we ensure unity in the membership, and have the most biblically consistent church in our region.

There's the short answer. We can talk more about the exegetical foundation of our position on another occasion. I'll try to look up Dever's stuff before we talk again.

Blessings.