Brief Excerpt on Pulpit Committees and the Wisdom of a Local Church Plurality of Lay Elders

Brief Excerpt on Pulpit Committees, Congregations, and the Wisdom of a Local Church Plurality of Lay Elders  (Part One)



Why does it matter?  Why now write on this topic?  Answer: as I continue to listen to my brethren within fundamentalism preach, several themes are repeating as they sound a rally cry: first, how to keep a younger generation of fundamentalist pastors in fundamentalism and two, a buckshot blast on every theological issue that may or may not be attracting the younger generation away from their fundamentalist roots.  So what are these vast repeating concerns? You'll have to listen to what they are saying to find out.  But for the sake of this current thread: congregationalism and a plurality of lay elders.

I am assuming the following are correct and biblical for the following argument:

One, the New Testament teaches a plurality of lay elders in each local NT church. Just heard a recent excellent review sermon on the plurality of elders from a church in Greenville, SC.

Two, the position of deacon and/or deacon board is not a position(s) of authority in the local NT church. It is a position of service in the local church. There are no passages in the NT giving authority to deacons.

Three, history confirms these two above positions (we are not alone on an island to make up church polity of our own making). The only way to avoid points one and two above is to simply not teach or misconstrue the biblical texts of how they have been historically interpreted.

Four, congregational polity also works in coordination with this plurality of lay elders. This is typically where many baptist church pastors stop.  I for one am glad to see the numerous books in print encouraging churches moving to a plurality of lay elders in leadership.

Please see other articles on this website for a defense of the above positions.  I have written multiple articles concerning elders and polity within the local church. See here for that earlier series.

To answer the question we need to actually start with the Bible. There is no reference or even a hint of proof texts referring to a committee within a local church which alone has the responsibility to select the next elder/pastor for the local congregation.  The  only ones I can think of that come even close would have to be twisted to make them a proof text.

Does Acts 6 helps?  At best the congregation chose the deacons (not elders) which were then approved by the existing apostles.  I get the idea you could use this one as long as you ignore the content, topic, and context.

Really what you have to do is appeal to a pragmatic argument (it works must be okay).  Perhaps a plea to we've always done it this way (could have always been wrong too).

Textually what you need is a congregation that has a sub-divided group that with the responsibility of selecting the next elder/pastor within that particular local church.

What about the other options.  The elders selecting future elders? Or an entire congregation selecting a candidate approved by the elders?

What does the Bible says?  What evidence do we have? Consider the following:

Acts 14:23 "when they had appointed elders for them"  Contexts seems to identify the "they" as the apostles who were visiting earlier planted local churches.  The second "them" appears to be the local congregation. This seems to fit the context best.  Verse 21, "When they had preached."  Not the congregation but the elders passing through. Later in that same verse "and had made many disciples."  Again this would be mishandling the context to change the subject of the verbs. Third reference, "they returned to Lystra...." The same individuals preached, made disciples and returned.  Same subject all three times.  Verse 22 includes two more participles "strengthening" and "encouraging" with same same subjects as previous verse.  Its the elders/apostles passing through the local churches.  Now to verse 23, "when they has appointed elders for them in every church."  Why all of a sudden would the subject change?

This fits with Dr. Stewart Custer's commentary as well, "We may conclude that the apostles observed the believers carefully on their return journey and chose men who had already established a good testimony..." (Stewart Custer, Witness to Christ: A Commentary on Acts).  So the subjects are not the local church but the apostle/elders themselves.

David Peterson agrees as well that Paul and Barnabas are the ones doing the ordaining/appointing.  So its not the local church at all involved in this action (The Pillar New Testament Commentary:  Acts of the Apostles, 2009).

So this understanding of the text is not new, twisted, or imaginary.  Its simply a straightforward reading of the text in its context without another motive to dodge the results.  The result is obvious: it is not the congregation making the decision. So how do those who don't see the elders reference handle this verse? Is "raising your hand" to vote in 2018 really an option? Or is this simply another abuse of an etymological fallacy?

We'll address that answer next time.

Till then keep reading your Bible.

Comments as always encouraged.

The Synagogue and Biblical Interpretation (Part Two)

The Synagogue and Biblical Interpretation 

(Part Two)

I first addressed this subject in an article posted in September 2016 (Series Part One).  Much of my same preliminary concerns and thoughts remain.  For those who don't want to click on the link and read the article in its entirety here's a synopsis.  First, the Old Testament contains zero references, either prescriptively or descriptively, in relation to the Jewish Synagogue (the inter-testamental notes in your Bible don't count).  Therefore, from the start there is no example, command, or precedent for Jewish synagogue worship.  Second, Jesus worshipped in the synagogue.  So Jesus actively participated in (man designed) worship practices. Third, the apostles continue to worship and evangelize in the synagogue years after Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension.  So what?  Seems clear that neither first century Jews, the Messiah, nor his followers had any scruples about participation in this inter-testamental Jewish institution.

This directly relates to so many issues Christians disagree on today.  How do we worship?  How do we live?  So many social justice issues are simply not addressed in the scriptures.  You are left with two historically debated options (at least in the application for worship and no this not an either-or fallacy).  I am assuming that when the scriptures claim, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," and it can make a person "perfect/mature" then either in principle or precept the Bible addresses every potential issue you will face.  First, do we restrict our worship practices to (only) what is clear prescribed or even commanded in the pages of scripture?  Or on another level, do we restrict our worship to what is revealed in the NT?  Second, do we have the freedom or liberty to practice in worship concepts or methods that are not explicitly forbidden in the pages of scripture?  Not sure?  How about prayer books, Sunday school, prayer meetings, youth group, or number of services?  These positions matter.

Again, how do I as a Baptist wrestle with the synagogue and worship?  To further heighten the tension, they also worshipped in the synagogue on the sabbath. You'll have to re-read the articles I've posted on that issue another time.  But again, try applying the above principles to your Lord's day (Sunday) worship service (or how every many of them you have on that day).  See how hard this can be if you want to stringently adhere to position of only practicing what is explicitly practiced or commanded in the scriptures (or perhaps only the NT)?

Since I'm a Baptist I'll use myself and my beliefs as an example.  Consider the title "Baptist."  This designates my beliefs concerning one particular Christian ordinance as found in the pages of the New Testament.  If I am bound only to what is explicitly stated or practiced in the NT then what conclusions do I draw?  Again, my intent is to state what the Bible actually says not what a group or denomination practices.  First, when should a person be baptized?  Before or after a confession of faith?  Must it be that particular individual who makes a confession before that same individual is baptized?  Second, when actually should they be baptized?  One week, month, or year later?  Must I see some evidence or credibility of genuine faith?  How do I know?  Do I baptize them the same day?  Do I re-baptize them if they did really believe the gospel the first time?  Third, what formula should I use?  Do I baptize them in the name of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy spirit or in Jesus' name only? 

Back to our original topic of this article.  At what point does the synagogue play into this conversation?  First century Jews, Jesus, and the apostles/disciples don't seem  concerned about be limited to the pages of what the OT alone states.  Eventually I will need to draw on the synagogue to revisit the plurality of lay elders in a local church.  How they are to be chosen and who should be responsible for it?  But this will have to wait for now.

Thoughts encouraged.  

Dialogue interesting.  

Hope it helps to actually further and build up Christ's body.

Christian Liberty in the London Baptist Confession and The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Key Difference in Ch. XXI.

Christian Liberty in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith: A Key Difference in Chapter XXI

How a Christian treats this issue is actually a bigger picture of a person's heart than you might think (this included motives including pragmatism).  Certain activities claimed to be done in love or in the name of Christian liberty might not be so.

Is it truly loving and charitable to impose one's personal believes on other Christians (and in the name of liberty)?

Is it truly correct to define someone as unteachable and unsubmissive who will not blindly follow current theological fads and methodologies (and this done to in the name of liberty)?


If you've ever read these two historical documents before then you have no doubt noticed the great deal (or overwhelming deal) of verbatim vocabulary, grammar, and theology.  However there are many places where these two documents embrace dramatically different positions in regards to both theology and practice. 

Just a small example would be the fact that in relation to one particular "ordinance" or "sacrament" these two documents embrace different positions on one ordinance: namely baptism.  Hence, one is primarily but not exclusively a "Presbyterian" document and the other is primarily a "Baptist" document.  That being said, this is not the point of difference I wish to draw attention to at this time.

Chapter 21 has another striking difference in relation to church and state and their relation to Christian liberty.  For the sake of argument, perhaps we can at least acknowledge the historical context and each confessions reaction to Roman Catholicim's self-professed authority and doctrinal abuses.  If you commonly read the LBC 1689, as I do then you will notice the following paragraph is missing in you version (it is also absent in meaning American versions of the WCF):

Paragraph IV. (Of Christian Liberty and liberty of conscience)

" And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate."

There are three key areas addressed in the paragraph not to be found in Baptist versions of the confession: church power, government (civil) power, and reactionism (abused liberties).  (Let's at least be fair to acknowledge some American Presbyterian versions have omitted this paragraph also).

Who trumps who?  Or what source of authority trumps what?  Does the state/government have absolute authority?  Does the church have absolute authority?  Or a third option, does the individual practice of personal liberty or conscience trump the above two options?  It should be obvious in common vernacular which side someone is endorsing by the vocabulary they choose to employ.

Consider the following:

1.  The vast array of interpretations concerning church discipline, pastoral or congregational authority, or denomination control.  Who defines error?  Doctrine?  Heresy?  How much power is given to the leadership?  Accountability?

2.  The vast array of interpretations of government or state intervention: education, finance, social issues, setting standards (or even no standards).  Who can punish?  Doctrinal jail time?  Lock you pew?

3.  The vast array of interpretations or liberties of practice which divide individuals and even families--even to the point of corporate division (standards, music, Bible translations, gun control, etc...).  chapter and verse?  Proof texts?  That's your opinion?  

4.  The vast array of publishing houses, competition, blogs, and personalized accounts.  Who will read by book?  What doctrines are added/thrown out to reach an audience?  What is believed verbally but never in print?

Praise the Lord that theology and Biblical interpretation don't have to occur in a near-sighted vacuum.  I think some evangelicals today actually believe these concepts did not already exist in the past.  Radical new ideas of worship, church, evangelism, or anything motivated by pragmatic numbers should cause us to stop and think.  Well you would think it would.

I'm not saying all the covenants in church history are perfect or need to be followed with blind obedience, but they do give as great doctrinal grounds to build upon. 


Comments encouraged.