My Concerns for Biblical Fundamentalism and the Next Generation (Both Doctrine and Practice)

My Concerns for Fundamentalism and the Next Generation

Several items have been churning in my heart and mind over my twenty-six years in Independent Fundamental churches.** Just for record I'm in my mid-forties and have faithfully served as a United States Army Chaplain for nearly sixteen years. I currently serve as a Command and General Staff College Instructor. I'm not a local church pastor or seminary professor so I have neither position to motivate my answers. I am however concerned (as a movement) these churches and institutions address issues which we have faced and will continue to face in the future. 

**Working definition: fundamentalism--a Christian movement which believes in the historic fundamentals of biblical Christianity and a willingness to separate from those who deny in doctrine or practice these basic Christian truths. 

First, I have been a member of or regularly attended fundamental churches in six different states (WV, SC, MI, IN, AK and currently attending a Bible church in OH). As a graduate of several of their institutions, I desire to see them both to continue and to thrive spiritually and academically. I've seen and experienced what they practice and teach.  Worst case I don't want to see any more fundamental baptist colleges and seminaries close their doors.  Who might be next or for what reason? Financial strains? Compromise? Music? Translations? Internal division? Community college competition? What might it be and how can we avoid it from happening? So for starters I'm not out to protect a school, church, movement or my source of income. I simply don't want a movement to die out or refuse to adjust applications for the wrong reasons. 

Second, having read and listened to the concerns expressed by fundamental baptist leaders these past years, several things have become more clear than before. If fundamentalism is concerned about college and seminary graduates from within our own ranks leaving then we really need to consider why or what the motives for leaving could be? And once these concerns are heard will they be acted upon? A point of clarification: they are not leaving Christianity they are leaving Fundamentalism as a movement as expressed in local churches and related seminaries. I have four children and I hope there will still be schools we can support in operation 10-15 years down the road. 

So based on my limited twenty-six years within fundamental churches and forty plus years of life I offer my concerns for fundamentalism below. I hope they are received well.  I know others have these same concerns since I've heard some of them explicitly made publicly in fundamentalists fellowship gatherings. So for sake of space and time I'm taking up one issue for each of the following articles. My guess is any of these concerns can be or have been already read on sites such as SharperIron, FBFI, or from IntheNickofTime (Bauder).

Issue one--If one camp, denomination, or group of churches is making or has made one English translation a matter of orthodoxy then as I understand it this means they are making it a doctrinal issue (not just a preference). The issue has been pushed beyond just being a secondary or tertiary issue. This throws out Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 as well.  If someone's beliefs (doctrine and practice) are now in question because of this one English translation then if fundamentalism believes this position is doctrinally incorrect then we have an obligation (for sake of consistency) to separate from these men. It is not a matter of friendship or club membership. Many seminaries and local churches have made tremendous changes in a positive directions: both in doctrine and practice. Just to be clear there are professing fundamentalist schools and seminaries on both sides of this issue. If it is simply a matter of preference, then we need to use different terms. On the other hand, if this is a doctrinal issue, then we have a greater threat for future generations than we may be willing to admit. 

If I remember correctly multiple books have been written on this subject, classes taught, and public statements made. I have a list of these here. They are useful and thoroughly academic in presenting the reader with information to make an informed and historical decision on this issue. The good thing to know is that more and more pastors are understanding the historical position on this issue, many of which are helping their churches to move away from a one translation only position or a least a translation in more modern English understandable by current and future generations. Fundamentalism must be willing to move beyond being defined by a position on an English translation. I applaud those using the ESV and NASB. May they continue to flourish and grow. 

For sake of argument only one of the two seminaries I've attended was consistent in doctrine and practice (not a crime but simply a concern).  In one seminary we used one particular Greek text in the class room but then required memorization from an English text produced from another.  See the problem. At least the other seminary was consistent if one particular Greek text was used then give liberty to preach and teach from English translations produced from it.  If not hold to another position. We have to be willing to move beyond arguments "for the sake of unity" or "people in the pew can't follow along." I'm glad to see improvements made in this area in literature produced, both textbooks and periodicals.  

This is not foregoing a liberty/right when preaching or visiting at a local church and publicly expounding the scriptures.  At least follow their policies on the issue.  Following a institutional policy for sake of consistency is not the same as imposing that position as the mark for orthodox Christianity. If you can't do that (or follow their appointed standards) then maybe you shouldn't publicly teach/preach in that particular church. Move on to another church or attend school elsewhere (or be willing to restrict yourself to that particular church's doctrine and practice). I have far more respect for those who are willing to go elsewhere if it helps them be more consistent or keep a clear conscience.

If fundamentalism, at least the portion of movement self-identified with one English translation, falls or is inflicted by unnecessary scrutiny due to the English translation issue then they have brought it upon themselves. We need to teach our people over and over. We need to be willing to withdrawal from institutions who will not paint a clear picture here. As for the institutions, both seminary and local church level, who are making changes in a healthy direction, may they be rewarded for their efforts to both teach and practice consistently on this text and translation issue. We must be willing to practice separation both directions. First, to those within broader evangelicalism who have compromised in doctrine and practice. Secondly, we must consistently extend our position to those self-professed within our own camp who are trying to redefine fundamentals of the Christian faith. In so far as they preach the gospel unhindered then great. But great error is committed attaching an English translation to one's standard of doctrinal integrity. 

In the end, I would simply ask if you are reading this and you personally don't know Christ as your Lord and Savior, then simply pick up a Bible (any Bible in any language) and read what Christ has done for you in His death, burial and bodily resurrection from the dead for your sins. Any translation can give you this information.  Read a Bible and come to know the Trinitarian God of the Bible, the Creator of you and me.

Read. Enjoy. Be challenged. Comment as needed.

Deacons and Deaconesses: Do Local Churches have Biblical precedent for both or either?

Deacons and Deaconesses: Do Independent Baptist Churches have Biblical precedent for both? (Part One)

Most denominations I'm aware of have at least (at a minimum) one pastor/elder and if large enough one deacon. Some have one pastor and multiple deacons and some also multiple elders and with multiple deacons. We've discussed elders and congregations already but who are these deacons?  Men or women? Servants? What are the requirements or expectations?  Do they teach or have authority? Are they a rotating board? I would guess by what I can read and have experienced for over twenty five years in independent baptist churches that how you define the "purpose" or "function" of a deacon defines more who qualifies for this position than what the Bible actually says.  So on that note what does the Bible actually say? On another note, where have we made up as roles the Bible never gave or potentially never intended by God? 

To evaluate the scriptural data available there are two potential options?  (To be fair, we could even ignore what the Bible says and make it up--don't laugh we do this more than you think). First, we'll examine the references to deacons as a noun.  Then secondly, to examine the references to serving or acting as a deacon in verb form. We are left to appeal to the only forms where this church activity even exists. From there it just gets more complicated dealing with two divisive or contested verses: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. So let's begin.

The noun διάκονος appears 29 times in the NT and six times in the LXX. In the KJV it appears as three terms: minister, servant, and deacon (3x). At face value the terms minister and servant help us understand what role we're talking of in the local church.  The three references to the term deacon are simply transliterations and don't help us much. By way of reminder, a transliteration is copies the underlying letters of another language into the letter of the receptor language.  For example, consider the term ἄγγελος. A transliteration would be the term angel. You can almost without knowledge of Greek see with your own eyes the letters A-N-G-E-L.  If I wanted to translate the term I would use another English word such as messenger.  So simply seeing the English word deacon doesn't help much. However, the uses of this term contain several contextual issues of great importance which will be discussed in detail later. For example, these individuals minister or function as servants to include Christ himself modeling a servant (Rom 15:8-9). The three references to deacon (as a church "office") will be given special attention (Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3 (2x)). And of course once we get a good NT basis for what a deacon is or is not maybe this will help with Phoebe's role/function in Roman 16 as well.

As for the verb form: to minster or to serve how does this help us understand this role? Simply by the numbers it occurs 37 times in the NT. The NT has the following senses for this verb: to serve, to minister, or to wait on. No references to a leadership role.  This is a role or function or service.  Consider some examples. Jesus came to serve (Mt 20:28). The angels served Jesus (Mt 4:11). This was not the focused mission of the apostles (Acts 6:6). Remember Mary and Martha. One of them was zealous in serving (Lk 10:40). So this act of serving/ministering is seen by men, women, angels, and even Christ himself.  So the subjects who perform this verb doesn't help much. This is a simple term for serving/ministering to other people of multiple genders and classes.

So what can we take away?  Christ served. Angels serve. Men and women serve. There appears to be nothing inherent in this term of any idea of leadership. These are servants in particular situations. So to really get at the church function of deacons we'll have to dig into the references where they have been transliterated for this church function.  We'll have to look at each one of our "deacon" passages.  What do they tell us? How do they help us understand this role/function within the local church?

I'm afraid the NT available data for word studies is not helpful to answer this question.  However, it does provide some interesting starting points.  First, the underlying Greek in noun form is translated as servant, minister, and three times as deacon. Second, similar results are for the verb form: to serve or to minister. So to answer this dilemma we'll need to focus on the contexts where the term deacon is actually used as a local church role/function.

Read. Enjoy. Comment.

Elders ordain Elders in the Local Church not the Congregation: This is Right Baptist Orthopraxy (Part four)

This is part four in a series discussing pulpit committees, local congregations, and a plurality of lay elders. Thus far we have discussed key texts used to defend congregations making the selection of elders in a local church.  Each time the context is observed and a careful handling of the passage takes place and it produces completely different products than what a congregational led local baptist church presents. Again, please note the argument is not whether the congregation makes some decisions (church discipline, doctrinal evaluation, etc...) but do they have the responsibility to ordain, select, and actually lay hands on elders.

Now lets shift to explicit commands and explanations where elders/pastor are told to and do ordain elders.  Let's assume for sake of argument Acts 13 and 14 had congregational involvement.. Those texts were addressed already.   Does this harmonize with today's texts. Is it the elders or congregation responsibility? Is there any mention or reference to congregational input or approval in this process? Our two key texts today are Titus 1:5 and 1 Timothy 4:14. (Don't worry in time we will have to wrestle through the details of Acts in a future article). But for now....

"I left you (Titus) in Crete, that you (Titus) would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you (Titus)," (Titus 1:5)

"Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you (Timothy), which was bestowed on you (Timothy) through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." (1 Timothy 4:14)

***Underlined and parenthesis emphases are mine and not part of the English Bible text.

Supposedly there will never be enough commands, hortatory voices used ("Let us..."), or NT descriptive or prescriptive texts to convince fundamental Baptists or for that matter any style of baptist persuasion to change their practice to have a plurality of lay elders (assuming they don't have elders already). Those who hold to this historic and exegetical position of a plurality of lay elders, I applaud. However, in the same breath fundamental baptists wonder why seminary graduates are leaving their ranks.  Could it have anything to do with how they have to chosen to selectively handle passages that cut cross grain to what they practice?  Consider Kevin Bauder on these NT plurality of elder texts writes, "If the New Testament does give churches permission to have more than one elder, this permission does not entail a requirement for multiple elders" (Kevin Bauder. Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order. Regular Baptist Press, 2012).  I am left wondering by what standard then do we determine what is "permitted" and what is "required"? I'm curious how he handles Acts 6, simply permission or prescriptive for all future local baptist church congregational leadership selection (well at least for proto-deacon roles)?

So we are left to understand Paul's statements to both Timothy and Titus as nothing but permission to have a plurality of elders?  So they really don't have to but Paul is giving them permission? Is this a solid exegetical and historical understanding of the text? On the other hand, to men like this there is more than enough evidence to have a congregational polity. Two pages later Bauder writes, "“A single bishop is adequate to fulfill the requirements of 1 Timothy 3. If the text does not require plural elders, we have no right to require plural elders” (p. 104). Orthopraxy is not limited to what is adequate.  The results are clear: the plurality of lay elders is not "required" but there's more than enough evidence to have a Baptist congregational polity. There are simply not enough references in Acts, the Pastoral epistles, James, and Hebrews to build a strong enough case.    

So there's our texts for today's discussion.  Concerning the first, Paul explicitly gives to Titus instruction in his small town (I should say island) of Crete to ordain church leaders. So let's dig into the details an expose some nuggets of gold for our edification.

First, in a local church, part of Titus' mission was to set things in order.  All three main conservative translations have almost identical translations here: "set in order (KJV) "put what remained into order" (ESV) and "set in order" (NASB). Maybe we can get some mileage out of the underlying Greek text?  Not really.  It occurs a massive one time in the NT, with no references in the LXX or in any extent Greek literature. So what are we left with for a definition? BDAG has "set right, correct in addition" and Louw-Nida has "to set right, to correct, to put into order." Well that doesn't help much, all three English translations have that same basic idea "set right."  So what Paul tells Titus is required to set things right in a local church congregation. It's not optional this is the position needed to have a healthy functioning local church.

Second, this verb is found within a simple grammatically identifiable purpose clause (ἵνα), "that..." which is confirmed by multiple grammars (See Black, It's Still Greek to Me: Intermediate Grammar, p. 143; Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond Basics, p. 676). The clause is filled out with the two purposes Titus was given.  The first as previously noted was to set things in order in the local church.  The second is to "ordain" or "appoint" elders (πρεσβύτερος) each each city.  The verb occurs roughly 20 times in the NT and over 200 times in the LXX.  So we have plenty of verses to help us understand its meaning in context (not just a word study or etymology). Thirteen of the 21 NT references have the idea of appointing someone for a duty. For reference, this is the same terms from Acts 6, "whom we may appoint over this business." I just have to wonder how many purpose clauses found in the NT can be ignored as simple "permission" but not a "requirement."  By what standard do we make this decision? 

Third, please note the subject of the verb.  It is Titus himself. A apostolic leader himself (shall we say pastor/elder/teacher).  So you've got a leader himself selecting future leaders. The goal: to have a plurality of lay elders.  You have to start somewhere. Not a congregational vote or selection.  Neither he nor we are in a theological vacuum here either.  Both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 present a list of qualifications for the elder/pastor/overseers. Knight confirms that Titus is following the exact same pattern as Paul and Barnabas back in Acts 14 (George Knight III. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles. 1992): An elder choosing elders.

Finally, this purpose for Titus is given with almost military clarity.  Paul uses the terminology "as I directed you." The underlying terms occurs 16 times in the NT and roughly 25 times in the LXX. Consider the different senses it has: to charge/instruct, to be charged, to order, to give orders, to direct, to be arranged.  The church is to be set in order and it is to be take seriously. This is not optional. This seems to be a necessity to have a healthy functioning local church with elders that can hold other elders accountable.

Let's consider some outside assistance.  Mark Dever agrees here "Paul intended each church in Crete to have a plurality of elders" (Mark Dever. The Church. The Gospel Made Visible. 2012, p. 58). Here's an interesting comment from Thomas Lea, "This directive to Titus to appoint elders is one reason 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus have been labeled the "Pastoral Epistles.'" (Thomas Lea. The New American Commentary: 1,2 Timothy, Titus, 1992, p. 276).

Remember even within a study Bible there are multiple authors. Consider Ray Van Neste's comments from the ESV Study Bible, "In every town is the consistent pattern of government in all NT churches: elders govern the churches..." (emphasis mine) (Ray Van Neste. The ESV Study Bible, 2008, p. 2348). Note MacArthur as well, "This ministry of appointing leaders is consistently Pauline (emphasis mine) (John MacArthur. The MacArthur Study Bible. 2006, p. 1855).

This passages seem pretty clear doesn't it? Did I miss pulpit committees or congregational selection of pastor/elders?  Please correct me from the verses using right reason, logic, grammar. Did I miss an aspect of grammar? Titus was told to ordain elders in every church. This is both a command to an elder and an example of elders selecting future elders in local churches. And more importantly it matches the biblical theology of the entirety of the book of Acts and other epistles on this issue: Elders ordain Elders. We'll address 1 Timothy 4 next time.

Eventually we need to turn to church history and we can't leave out Acts 6. Are our churches completely outside church history?  Have we invented our only timeline?  Where did Pulpit committees come from? I hope we are not doing it our own way. Seem's clear if you want a sub-group of the congregation to ordain future elders, then you have one: its called a plurality of lay elders.

Read. Enjoy. Comments as always encouraged.

Orthopraxy: Pulpit Committees, Congregationalism, Elders and the Raising of Hands: How should we make decisions? (Part Two)

Orthopraxy: Pulpit Committees, Congregationalism, Elders and the Raising of Hands: How should we make decisions in the local church? (Part Two)




As we continue this series we will readdress one of the common proof texts used by adherents of a congregational form of government (and by way of inference--pulpit committees).  Or in other words we will discuss the institution which is vigorously defended in fundamentalism to the almost exclusion of a plurality of lay elders. To be fair there are some churches within fundamentalism which have both a plurality of lay elders and congregational polity (and they're not Presbyterian). But there is a growing impetus that I see and hear to disregard elder passages or to relegate them to an ad hominem attack (as if being a Presbyterian were a crime).

This question before us is even more important when a local church is trying to discern the Lord's will in the selection of a new pastor or teaching elder.  And in relation to the current series under discussion: how would this relate to the local church have a plurality of lay elders? Could they or should they alone be the pulpit committee? Are they the ones given the task to ordain other elders? Let's remind ourselves again why this matters.  What if any responsibility does the NT text actually prescribe for the congregation? Correct doctrine is important (orthodoxy) but so is right practice (orthopraxy).  The scriptures are clear. We are not free to make up area liberty and disagreement.

As we continue this series, let's review quickly.  Several exegetical truths are assumed and defended elsewhere on this blog, commentaries, books, and throughout church history.  First, local churches have a plurality of lay elders as leadership. Second, deacons were not a rotating board of leaders but servants in a local church.  Third, congregations made some decisions in the local church (to what extent must be inferred--available textual data is potentially limited to church discipline passages). We'll need to revisit those passages again later.

From here we looked for proof texts to show what is commonly called pulpit committees.  There is in reality no proof in the NT for this organization (that is of course unless they are existing local church elders already).  How it came to exist historically in American Christianity is the topic for a later thread.  Acts 6 provides no help in the selection of local church servants.

From there we turned to Acts 14 and the selection of elders in local churches.  One key term used by advocates for congregational polity is the term translated as "appointed."  Here is a point of clarification, congregational polity is not under question, but the creation of pulpit committees. Nor is the question whether churches can have elders and congregational decision making.  Anyway back to the term "appointed."  The KJV uses the term "ordained" while the NASB and ESV use the term "appointed."  One term sort of puts the picture in your head of a committee, questions, and laying on of hands, and preaching certificates, etc....There are two distinct changes applied to this verse by strict adherents to a congregation form of polity.

First, the subject of the verb appointed/ordained.  Contextually (to the congregationalists), the subject of the verb is not the elder/apostles traveling through like the context would suggest.  The new subject of the verb is the local congregation.  It is the local congregation who are doing the ordaining/appointing. Hence, it is the congregation themselves (not the elders/apostles) who are making the decision.

Two, the etymology of the verb appointed/ordained.  The argument goes like this.  The underlying greek term (all two NT occurrences) is comprised by a combination of two terms: "hand" and "stretch out, extend."  So you see here the idea in the first century that the local church voted by democratic congregational polity by the raising of their hands (I'll assume as a good baptist these hands raised were at least 18 years old and members in good standing).  That seems to be the way people in America write their church covenants. Let's not forget adherents of a strong congregational authority have only two raising your hands verses by which they are trying to make a prescriptive case for all local churches. I don't want to throw out clear texts to church discipline where the congregation actually has a role.

Sounds convincing doesn't it?  I've heard fundamentalists preach this position repeatedly. Especially if you are preaching and teaching this to people who already agree with you it sounds pretty good.  So let's evaluate this interpretation in light of scripture. First, how is the term used elsewhere. Second, does an etymological understanding commit a fallacy of interpretation.  Third, if a NT writer wanted to say physically raise your arm in the air do they say that elsewhere? Lastly, does the context change the way the word should be understood?

This post is getting long so I'll be brief. First, the term appears twice in the NT (here and 2 Cor 8:19).  No reference in LXX but roughly 234 times in classical Greek.  One form of the verb with an attached preposition appears in Acts 10:41 but there God (the source of authority) is the subject who does the choosing (interestingly no one want's to impose congregational authority there). Not much to work with here.  In the other reference, Titus is chosen to travel with Paul by the local church.  Here's an odd point.  Titus was chosen by the churches (plural) to go with Paul.  How's that work?  So we have multiple churches collecting the raised hand majority democratic votes to select Paul's traveling partner? That complicates the subject. Its not just the one local church but many local churches (plural). The same term appears again in the plural form in the previous verse "churches" (v. 18).  So how does that fit in the local autonomous independent baptist church?  Even the KJV  still uses terms such as "ordain" and "chosen."  So I'm not sure this helps the voting interpretation any. Should we understand this prescriptively as well?  Local churches in plural format should vote together to send out missionaries? How's this work?

I poured through over twenty commentaries to get a feel for this one.  They are divided both in methodology and results (conclusion). Some seem to focus exclusively on the underlying etymology of the Greek term even drawing upon classical Greek usage.  Some believe the context determines the terms usage not it base dictionary etymology. While yet others acknowledge the apostles made the selection it could only happen with congregational approval. Lastly, the apostles chose themselves without the congregational approval. I seem to notice two trends here: one, those who focus their interpretive efforts on the terms etymology alone tend toward strong congregational decision making; and two, those who focus their efforts on the context and subjects tend toward a strong elder decision making. Is it possible to take away the argumentative weight of one of these two options? Here's an encouraging thought, even many that thought the term means a raising of hands state it doesn't mean that here and it is Paul and Barnabas making the decision (appoint/ordaining). On the other hand, many that came to the same contextual conclusion (Paul and Barnabas the acting subjects) have a hard time reconciling this with their own view of congregational polity. Oddly enough the NIV has the right contextual idea "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders..." (Acts 14:23).

Second, and by way of answer to the above question, the etymology of the term: hand and stretch out/extend.  As pragmatic and useful as it may sound to vote this way in 2018 I'm not sure this is what the NT writes (Luke/Paul) intended in the first century. This is the same line of reasoning that produces a definition of the church as "called out ones."  This is based on the two terms in Greek for word "church."  First, being a preposition "out of/from" and the second a verb "to call."  Hence our definition.  In response, it is more accurate to define our terms by usage and context not by etymological usage.  Not only this but this is simply an etymological fallacy, which is only one of sixteen possible fallacies from deriving meaning from the terms root.  Actually this one's quite common (See DA Carson's book Exegetical Fallacies, Chapter One "Root Fallacy").  Several other sources confirm this abuse of words etymology and faulty conclusions (See Cottrell, "Linguistics," in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis edited by Willem VanGemeren). Another text used in years past at BJU for teaching this hermeneutical problem of a words root is Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral. So it appears here the etymological argument for a raised hand congregation vote could have some merit if you divorce the term from its context and subjects in Acts 14:23. Or another point of view, the raised hands are the elders/apostles and not the congregation after all.

Third, could the Holy Spirit really say raise your hands if that's what he meant? Let's look at some NT examples.   Paul wrote with his "own hand" (Gal 6:11). How about 1 Tim 2:8 "lifting up holy hands."  Just a picture, euphemism, literally? Kinda of makes you wonder of all the references in the OT or even the Psalter (the Psalms) which speak of "raised hands" or even "bowing down." If raised hands is what was meant why find a cryptic way through word etymology to say it? A cryptic etymology which is not translated that way by any English translation I can find.

So do we have a pulpit committee in this verse?  Well actually this blog post didn't address that question but only a verse misused in a side-bar issue.  Now with this misapplied proof text potentially removed we can move on to other texts. To use texts like these to prove congregational voting seems not only a stretch but driven by an agenda to avoid references to a plurality of elders in local churches and to defend congregational authority and decision making. By extension, a pulpit committee as distinct from a functioning plurality of lay elders in the local church has no biblical warrant.

We still have other verses and church history to address.  They will come in forthcoming posts, this includes other means of making decisions by NT apostles (to include casting lots). Potential precedent for ballots?  We'll see.

Read. Comment. Enjoy.

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.