|
| Chris' Blog |
 |  |
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
In my previous post I mentioned that we are in the process of revising our current constitution. I stated, “Our current constitution, while stating congregationalism, falls short of clearly affirming the model of church leadership that we find in the New Testament.” The question naturally arises then, what is the biblical pattern for church government? Specifically, who are the church's scripturally mandated leaders?
The New Testament speaks of two distinct groups of leaders, which we call offices. We see the distinction between these two groups in Philippians 1:1, where Paul writes his letter “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.” So Paul addresses two groups: the overseers and the deacons. The same distinction is maintained in 1 Timothy 3:1, 8. In verse 1 he says, “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.” Then he goes on to list the qualifications of overseers. Then in verse 8 he says, “Deacons likewise must be…” before going on to list the qualifications for deacons. Therefore, it is clear that there are two different groups of leaders in the church: overseers (sometimes translated “bishop”) and deacons. Overseers are not deacons and deacons are not overseers.
Very little is said about deacons in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 3 addresses their qualifications. Most scholars agree that Acts 6:1-6 details the selection of the first group of deacons. Beyond that, this group is not directly addressed in the New Testament. The word “deacon” itself means “servant” and the men chosen in Acts 6 were charged with caring for widows and orphans in the daily distribution of food. This was to free up the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem to preach and teach the Word. Thus, we can describe the basic duty of the deacons as meeting the physical needs of the church and freeing the elders for the work of teaching the Word. There will be great variety from church to church in exactly what deacons do, but there basic role is made clear enough in Scripture to guide us.
Overseers, however, receive more attention in the pages of the Bible. Often, the term “elder” is used to refer to this same group, and a few times the word “pastor” or “shepherd.” For instance, in Titus 1 Paul commands Titus to “appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” Then goes on to list the qualifications for elders. In the midst of these qualifications he refers to elders as overseers in verse 7, saying, “For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach.” So in Titus 1 the elders and overseers are treated as the same group with two different labels. (Tellingly, neither of these labels is ever applied to deacons in the New Testament.)
Also, in Acts 20:17 Paul calls the elders of the church in Ephesus to meet with him and tells them in verse 28, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to pastor the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” In this passage the elders are called overseers and pastors. 1 Peter 5:1-2 is another passage where all three terms are used of one group of leaders: “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly.” The word “shepherd” means “pastor” and the word translated “exercising oversight” is simply a verb form of the word “overseer.” These three terms (elder, overseer, and pastor) refer to the same office.
It is this group that is charged with shepherding and overseeing the local church. I say “group” because in the New Testament we see a pattern of multiple elders. For instance, in Acts 20:17 Paul calls the “elders” (plural) of the “church” (singular) in Ephesus to meet with him. The church in Ephesus had more than one pastor. We see the same reality in Philippians 1:1 in which Paul addresses one church, along with its “overseers” (plural).
These two churches are not unique in having a plurality of pastors, however. Paul's normal practice when starting a new church was to appoint elders in every church. In Acts 14:23 we are told that Paul and Barnabus, “appointed elders for them in every church.” In addition, when Paul told Titus to appoint elders he told him to appoint elders (plural) “in every town.” Since each town had only one church during the New Testament era, we see that Paul here urges Titus to carry forward his practice of having multiple pastors/elders in each local congregation.
In summary, the New Testament recognizes two offices in the local church: pastor (also called overseer and elder) and deacon. Each local church is to have a plurality of pastors whose task it is to oversee, that is, manage the church and shepherd the flock. Each church is also to have deacons who serve the physical needs of the church and free the pastors for the task of preaching and teaching the Word. Both of these groups operate under the authority of the congregation, which in turn sits under the authority of Christ and his Word.
Many questions are left unanswered as we survey this evidence. How many elders/pastors should there be? We can only say that there must be more than one. Should these pastors all be paid or should some be considered lay pastors? We must let practical wisdom guide us. What exact duties are the deacons to perform? Only when the needs of the church are seen can that question be answered with specificity. These and many other questions remain unanswered by Scripture and so are left up to the church and its leaders to decide. Let us remain flexible and charitable in our assessments of these issues. Let us resolve to understand the basic structure as outlined in Scripture and labor to stay within the bounds set by the Bible. In all these things, let us move forward in love for one another and with the desire to honor God and be faithful to his Word.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Two basic issues gave rise to the need for a major revision of our church constitution. First, the current constitution contains many details that are, quite simply, neither feasible nor desirable. For instance, the current constitution, in the Policies and Procedures appendix, Article III, Section 1 states regarding the Family Life Center, “Each person who enters the facility will properly register each time he/she enters.” To “properly register” is then defined as “filling out a registration form and purchasing a 'personalized' Four-in-One name badge.” Given the high volume of use of the Family Life Center and the presence of the church offices in the building, this requirement is outdated and no longer reflects the day-to-day operations of the church.
As another example, the current constitution lists all of the committees of the church. This list, however, contains some committees that no longer exist and omits some that do exist. Given the difficulty involved in amending the constitution, it is not practical to submit an amendment every time the Committee on Committees wishes to create a new committee or change the duties of a committee. Examples such as these two could be multiplied many times over. Suffice it to say that simply making all of these minor changes would result in a significant alteration of our constitution.
As a solution to this problem, many details, such as building usage procedures and the duties of
individual committees, have been removed from the proposed constitution and placed in handbooks that are cited in the constitution as binding. These handbooks will be much easier to change, allowing the constitution to be a stable, defining document for the church rather than a detailed, quickly outdated guide. The goal is to have a constitution that defines who we are, both now and for generations to come.
The second problem that presented itself was more serious and involved much more prayer and study of the Scriptures. Our present constitution, simply put, does not present a fully biblical form of church government and is sorely lacking in theological precision.
Concerning theological precision, our current constitution contains only one paragraph in Article IV on Doctrine. This article mentions the authority of Scripture, “principles of freedom of the individual conscience,” the separation of church and state, and “the right of the individual to voice and vote in the affairs of this church.” No mention is made of God, Christ, salvation, etc. Granted, these basics are assumed, but the purpose of a constitution is to define who we are, and nothing is more important in defining who a church is than its theological foundations. The proposed constitution contains our vision statement, a mission statement, the church covenant, and a much more full doctrinal statement covering such important issues as God, the Trinity, the Person of Christ, Human Beings, Sin, Salvation, Eternal Security, etc.
Concerning church government, both the current constitution and the proposed constitution value and promote the congregation as the final authority in matters of church life. This means that no individual or groups (either pastors or committee) may overrule the congregation. A congregational decision is binding upon all and the congregation is the final court of appeal within the local church. Whatever else we might say about church government, we must affirm congregationalism.
Our current constitution, while stating congregationalism, falls short of clearly affirming the model of church leadership that we find in the New Testament. The New Testament presents us with two offices, pastors and deacons. Both the current and the new constitution state this. However, the New Testament also presents a clear pattern of multiple pastors in each local church. The terms pastor, elder, and overseer (or bishop) are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and we always see a plurality of elders in the churches of the New Testament (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17; Philippians 1:1).
Many Baptist churches of previous generations understood and followed this pattern. While most Southern Baptist Churches of the past 100 years have not followed the Scriptures in this, we clearly see a precedent for a plurality of elders in both the New Testament and in Baptist history (and Southern Baptist history).
We have been functioning with multiple pastors for several years, so in practical terms this change in the constitution will not have a great effect upon how we are functioning as a church right now. However, we need to align our constitution with current practice and, more importantly, with the biblical witness.
The goal of this process is not to introduce sudden and major changes to our church. Rather, we seek to make our constitution more useable, and thereby more authoritative. Most importantly, we want to make our constitution more biblical. In reality, very little will change on a day-to-day basis within the church with (God-willing) the approval of this proposal. However, we will be able to establish a document that is biblical, practical, and binding, so that First Baptist Church will have a solid biblical foundation beneath it and a clear system of accountability for generations to come.
 |
|
