Showing posts with label polity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polity. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Free Audio Available for 9Marks Workshop at The Northbrook Conference

Northbrook Baptist Church recently hosted a 9Marks Workshop, led by Matt Schmucker and Jonathan Leeman of 9Marks.

I can honestly say that it was one of the best and most worthwhile events that I have attended as a pastor. I would highly recommend visiting the schedule page on their website and planning to attend a 9Marks Workshop.

9Marks has graciously allowed us to post the audio from the six sessions online, for you to listen to for free. Enjoy attending a "virtual-workshop" here:
May the Lord be glorified in the health of His church!

Monday, April 23, 2007

Sermon Series on the Local Church

I've finished posting a sermon series on the local church:
A few suggested resources:

    The Local Church: Led by Elders, Served by Deacons (Part II)

    © Eric M Schumacher – Preached April 22, 2007 at Northbrook Baptist Church, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

    I want to ask you, for the purposes of this sermon, to imagine that you are an unbeliever with absolutely no church background at all. Your only possession is a Bible, which you being to read it from the beginning.

    By the time that you finish the Gospels, you are converted to faith in Jesus Christ. In your endless free time, you have devoted yourself to studying the Bible as intensely and as thoroughly as you can.

    When you get to Philippians 1:1, for the first time, you come across the word “deacon.” So, you decide to devote the next several days to finding out who these “deacons” are and what they do.

    What would be the result of that study? If you could only use the word of God—and no experience or tradition—how would you define the office of deacon?

    That is what I have been attempting to do for the last several weeks in preparation for this sermon (apart from the deserted island bit). I have read books and commentaries and consulted resources. Yet, in doing all that, I have been constantly asking myself—is what these authors are saying supported fully by the Word? If I limit myself to what I see in the text of Scripture, what do I come up with? It has not been an easy task.

    What are Deacons?
    Church traditions vary widely on what deacons are. Deacons are everything from apprentices to the priesthood to assistants in priestly duties to substitute pastors.

    For some, a deacon is a “jack-of-all-trades.” Charles Deweese (a Southern Baptist) writes, “The potential areas of deacon service are unlimited. Deacons can engage in such diverse ministries as teaching, preaching, visiting, becoming involved in social action, counseling, leading in charitable giving, organizing, administration, carrying out the Lord’s Supper, and meeting basic needs of the pastor.”

    In some churches, deacons are the ruling board of the church who supervise, assess, and counsel the pastors. In other traditions, they look after the physical needs of members and the property of the church. Alexander Strauch, in his book The New Testament Deacon, defines the deacons as those who are “to be involved in a compassionate ministry of caring for the poor and needy.”

    Where Shall We Begin?
    With all the differences, where do go to begin gaining an understanding of who deacons are and what they do? John MacArthur offers wise words: “…if we’re to understand the biblical meaning of deacon, we need to eliminate any preconceived definitions.” That is, the question we must be asking is not “What have deacons been in the churches I have been in?” or “What have I always been told a deacon is?” The question we must ask is, “What are deacons in the Bible?”

    I will admit that there is difficulty with that task. As far as I can tell, there is no passage of Scripture that gives us a straight-forward definition of a “deacon.”

    We are left to build a composite definition of “deacons” from three places in Scripture: 1) The meaning of the word “deacon.” 2) The origin of the office of deacon. 3) The differences in the qualifications and duties of overseers and deacons.

    A Definition
    I will begin by giving you what I see the biblical office of deacon as being, and then proceed to defend that definition from Scripture. I define deacons as follows:

    Deacons are members of the local church, filled with the Spirit, wise, and godly in their life and doctrine, who are set apart by the congregation for specific practical services (ministries) in order to free the elders to carry out the ministry of the Word and prayer and to protect the unity of the body.

    1) The Meaning of the Word Deacon
    The word “deacon” in our passage is a transliteration of the greek word “diakonos,” which simply means “servant” or “minister.” Words from the same “word-family” as “diakonos,” appear in the New Testament over 100 times as both as nouns and verbs, most of these without any sense of a technical meaning. These words refer to:
    • Acts of service, such as: serving food (Lk 10:40), waiting tables (Jn 2:5,9), physical or financial care for those in need (Mt 25:44; Lk 8:3), or the administration of money (2 Cor 8:20).
    • People who serve, such as: assistants and helpers (Acts 19:22), Christ (Rom 15:8), government rulers (Rom 13:4), Old Testament prophets (1 Pet 1:12), and the Apostles (2 Cor 6:4; Col 1:23,25; Eph 3:7)
    • Demons and Angels (2 Cor 11:15; Heb 1:7)
    • All Christians are called to be ministers: Ephesians 4:11 says that the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers are given to “equip the saints for the saints for the work of the ministry.” Every Christian is called to be a minister.

    2) The Origin of the Office of Deacon—Acts 6
    The title “deacon” tells us, at a minimum, that this office is an office of service. The next question we face is: What does a deacon do? The difficulty lies in the fact that there is no passage of Scripture that flat out says, “Deacons, do this!” as we have with elders.

    We find help in defining the duties of deacons when we look at Acts 6, a passage that likely records the origin of the office.

    In this passage, the verbal form of the word “deacon” occurs several times, highlighting two types of services (deaconing). The setting of Acts 6 is a conflict regarding the daily distribution of food to widows.

    In verse 1, the word translated “distribution” is a word related to “deacon.” The food was being served (deaconed) and the greek-speaking widows were being neglected.

    In verse 2, the Apostles, who were functioning in the early church much like elders over the congregation, declared that it would not be right to give up preaching the word of God to “serve (deacon) tables.”

    In verses 3-4¸ the Apostles instructed the congregation to select seven men who were full of the Spirit and wisdom to distribute the food. And, the Apostles would continue to devote themselves to prayer and to the ministry (deaconing) of the Word.

    We see two types of service (deaconing): “deaconing” the Word and “deaconing” tables. Both of these ministries are seen as very important in this passage. However, “deaconing tables” is a duty that should not draw the Apostles (elders) away from the “deaconing of the Word.” Therefore, seven are set apart to “deacon tables” to free the Apostles to “deacon the Word.”

    Some have questioned whether these seven are the first deacons. It is argued that they are never called deacons and that the laying on of hands is too common a thing in the book of Acts to indicate that this is a formal office. Likewise, it seems to be the selection of a group to meet an immediate need, not a perpetual office.

    Those points are understandable. However, their service is called “deaconing.” It is possible that Luke did not need to use their title because he used their description. Also, this would be common with Luke’s style.

    We can also add that “the seven” were set apart for an official service ministry on behalf of the body. Perhaps that is what deacons are—members set-aside by the congregation to perform a particular service as long as that service is needed.

    I do not think that Acts 6 shows us that deacons exist only to carry out the mercy ministry of the church. The emphasis in this passage which provokes the selection of these seven is not the fact that the need is “mercy ministry” (benevolence ministry), but the fact that a legitimate, physical ministry was drawing the apostles away from the ministry of the Word and prayer. Therefore, what I think we see is the beginning of choosing servants to meet a particular ministry need. (I also do not think that the number “seven” is a pattern that must be followed. Rather, they are likely selecting the number that they need to get the job done.)

    So, how does the origin of deacons in Acts 6 help us to fill out the definition of “deacons?” In Acts 6, we see that deacons:

    • are not a check-and-balance or second house of legislature to approve/supervise the elders. But they are servants who free the elders for spiritual ministry by performing a particular and important practical service.are not the smartest, friendliest, and most successful businessmen. But they are those recognized as being spiritual and wise.
    • are not a research or deliberative committee to help the congregation make a collective decision or a team compiled to approve policies and determine direction of the church. Rather, they are servants who service is essential to preserving and promoting church health by meeting the practical needs in life of the congregation.

    What did these deacons do? They:

    • met the practical, physical needs of the church.
    • allocated the resources of the church.
    • supported the ministry of the apostles by freeing them for spiritual service.

    What might be some examples of “deacon” positions in the church today?
    Some examples of deacon-type tasks would be:

    • collecting and counting the offerings.
    • paying the bills and administrating the budget.
    • maintaining the physical properties of the church.
    • organizing and carrying-out the hospitality ministry.
    • supervising and organizing the nursery.
    • preparing materials for the worship service, Lord’s Supper and Baptisms.
    • orchestrating and carrying-out the benevolence ministry (food, clothing, housing, etc.).
    • caring for the physical needs of members—transporting, visiting, providing for orphans and widows.

    These are all things that are essential ministries of the church which, if left to the pastors to do, would distract from their ministry of the Word and prayer.

    3) The differences in qualifications and duties of overseers and deacons.
    The third area that I mentioned could help us is the differences in qualifications overseers and deacons.

    Perhaps it is worth noticing that there are qualifications for deacons. “Of course!” you say. But, if I am correct in seeing a “deacon” as any person set aside by the congregation for specific practical service, then this would mean that any person set aside by the congregation for specific practical service would need to fit these qualifications.

    “Come on!” you say, “Someone one needs to fit these qualifications to collect the offering, to usher, or to distribute the church’s resources? Isn’t that a bit over the top!?”

    Let me ask this—what were the deacons doing in Acts 6? Essentially, they were handing out bread to hungry widows. And, what was the summary of their qualifications? They had to be “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” in order to facilitate the church’s hunger ministry! Service in the church is a serious thing—no matter how small the matter may seem in human eyes! Whether you are handing out daily allotments of food, or distributing the churches finances, or organizing the nursery—you are serving the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.

    Service in the church goes beyond natural gifting and experience. It is essential that those who serve the church in any capacity be spiritually qualified to do so.

    Deacons should be servants who are:

    ...available, able and willing to serve. Because they care for physical needs, they should be people who are available, able and willing to serve in the area they are assigned to.

    ...committed to the unity of the church. Because they are preservers of church unity, they should be people who are committed to unity in thought, word and deed. They should not be people who are unhappy with the church in attitude or action; they should not be grumblers, complainers, critics or those who stir up dissention. As one author says, “They should muffle, not magnify conflict.”

    ...supportive of the pastors’ (elders’) ministry. Because they support the elders’ ministry, they should be supportive, not critical people. Their task is to free the pastors to spiritual ministry, not to suppress it.

    ...filled with the Spirit and wisdom. They will serve the church through spiritual wisdom. They are persons who seek first to apply the Scripture to life, not simply the practical wisdom of the business world.

    ...godly in their life...

    • Dignified. Their behavior adorns the gospel and does not disgrace it.
    • Not double-tongued. These are not people who will smile to your face and stab you in the back.
    • Not addicted to much wine. This simply means that they are not addicted to much wine—no more, no less.
    • Not greedy for dishonest gain. They will not take advantage of the resources entrusted to them.
    • The husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. Literally, “a man of one woman.” If a man who is a deacon is married, he is faithful to his wife. He is above reproach in his relationships with women. He serves well as the head of his household. His care for his family is a precursor of his care for the church.

    ...and godly in their doctrine.

    • Hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. They believe the central truths revealed in the Gospel and are in agreement with the doctrinal distinctives of the local church. They are on the “same page” as the congregation theologically. They do this with a clear conscience. They are not harboring any settled disagreements with the Christian faith as expressed in the church’s confession of faith.
    • Tested first…proved blameless. People are not appointed to service the first time they walk in the door of the church. We must take time to observe both their life and their doctrine. There is not set limit on this—it will vary from person to person.
    • Verse 11 – Wives/Women. There are multiple ways that this verse can and is interpreted—typically either referring to the wives of deacons or to an additional category of women who serve as deaconesses. Come back tonight.

    Deacons should serve well because they will gain a good standing for themselves and great confidence in the faith. Service in the church should be approached with great care, because service in the church is a portrait of the Gospel. Jesus Christ came to “serve,” to give his life as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28). The greatest act of service in the history of the universe is the eternal Son of God becoming man and dying on the cross for our sins and rising from the dead for our righteousness. He humbled himself to serve us by meeting our needs at his expense.

    This, by the way, is where you find your salvation. In a message about service, do not think that you need to get active in serving in the church so that you can have a better chance at getting saved. Your only means of being saved is not by serving Christ, but by being served by him. You must trust in his great act of service on your behalf by repenting of your sins and pleading for his forgiveness.

    Service is not to earn something, but to display something—the glory of the gospel. Every act of service in the church is to be an imitation of Jesus Christ. We are to be servants who in our service reflect Jesus Christ. When we do this, it gives us great confidence that we are believers, being conformed into his image.

    We see that the list of qualifications for overseers and deacons are fairly similar, with one important difference. Overseers are required to be “able to teach” (verse 2), but this is nowhere a requirement for deacons. In fact, we never see “teaching,” “preaching,” “instructing,” “exhorting,” “shepherding,” or “leading” given as the duties of deacons. We do see, in Acts 7-8, Philip and Stephen—who were “deacons” in Acts 6—declaring the word of God. But nowhere is this said to be part of their “deaconing.” Rather, this is simply what they did as spiritual Christian men!

    So, we see that overseers must be able to teach, but this is not required of deacons. We also see in 1 Timothy 5:17 that “the elders” “rule” and “preach and teach.” “Ruling” refers to directing the affairs of the church—giving spiritual oversight. This is never said to be a duty of the deacons.

    So, What is the Relationship Between Pastors/Elders & Deacons?
    The pastors serve the church by teaching and exercising authority. The deacons are not given for these tasks. They are given to serve the practical, physical needs of the church so that the pastors can serve the spiritual needs.

    God designed the church to have two distinct offices—not two offices with different names doing the same task. Deacons are extraordinarily important servants who are called to handle practical details and physical needs in the church.

    It is significant to note that there are two—and only two—church offices described in the New Testament. We have no mention of any other position in the church than pastors and deacons.

    So am I saying that the “deacon board” is responsible for all the practical, physical services in the church? To answer that question, let’s take a step back. Where did the Bible ever say anything about a “deacon board”?

    In Baptist church life, the “deacons” have become synonymous with a “body or board of men who…” But remember—for the purposes of this sermon, we are new believers with no church background on a deserted island with only our Bible trying to figure out what a “deacon” is. Could we find mention of a “deacon board”?

    We have mention in 1 Timothy 4:14 of “the council of elders.” We have no mention of such a council of the deacons. Yes, there were “seven” selected in Acts 6 to administer the hunger ministry. However, this in no way implies that they became a board that oversaw any and every ministry of the church. Rather, they simply appointed the number needed to get this ministry done. And they did what they were appointed to do—no more.

    This is why in my definitions, I defined elders as “a group of men,” while I defined deacons as “members appointed to specific services.” The pastors of the church function as a “council” that together oversees the spiritual life of the church.

    For practical services in the church, “members are appointed for specific services.” Therefore, if seven are needed for a particular task, then seven would be appointed. If two are needed, two are appointed. If three, then three. If one, then one. While these servants might coordinate with each other on occasion, there is no real need for them to meet as a “board” because they are all serving in different areas of practical service.

    How I see this working out practically in the church is like this:
    The pastors would function much like our deacon board currently functions. The church would ordain as many men as needed to join together to jointly pastor the church.

    The office of deacon would function similar to how our committee system functions now. When a particular, practical service need is identified—whether for audio/sound, benevolence, hospitality, nursery, etc.—as many qualified members as are needed would be set apart to ensure that that need is met for as long as needed.

    The Biblical Church
    So, this wraps up five sermons on the local church. This is how I believe the Bible teaches the church is to be:

    • I believe that the church should have a formal church membership.
    • I believe that this membership should consist of active members.
    • I believe that the congregation is the final, earthly authority over the life of the local church.
    • I believe that the local church is to be led by a plurality of elders (pastors) who teach and through their teaching exercise spiritual authority over the church.
    • And, I believe that deacons are qualified members who are set apart by the congregation for specific practical services to free the elders to minister spiritually.

    I should add one other thing that I believe: While I am sincerely and completely convinced that what I have said in this sermon series is what the Word of God says, I also believe that I could be wrong. I realize that I am a fallible human being, capable of making mistakes. Perhaps pastors are supposed to say that because it will decrease the congregation’s confidence in them. But, I’ve never really wanted your confidence to be ultimately in me. I don’t preach so that you’ll put your trust in me. I preach so that you’ll put your confidence in the Word of God.

    If you think that I’ve erred in this series, I’d invite your correction from the Bible. Be like Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos in Acts 18—take me and explain to me the way of God more accurately.

    But, until I’m convinced otherwise, I believe that this is what God’s Word teaches. And, I believe that life—from Creation to Spiritual Rebirth to the Return of the King—always comes through God’s Word. Therefore, I am convinced that a church ordered by the Word of God will be full of life and vigor for the salvation of souls and the glory of God.

    Let’s join together to pray and act and think and live to that end—conformed to God’s Word for the glory of God in Jesus Christ.

    Sunday, March 4, 2007

    The Local Church: Led by Elders, Served by Deacons (Part I)

    © Eric M Schumacher – Preached March 4, 2007 at Northbrook Baptist Church, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

    Growing up, my understanding of the church was based purely on what I had seen. Every church, I figured, was just like my church—or, at least, it ought to be. And the reason I figured every church did things the way my church did them was because my church was all that I had ever really seen.

    When I went to college, I faced a dilemma. None of my friends believed in the validity of infant baptism. And so, as the topic came up, the views I held from my upbringing were challenged. I was faced with two options: I could (A) cling tightly to what I believed simply because that is what our church had always done and it was all I’d ever known. Or, I could (B) turn to the Bible to see if it said anything about baptism.

    That experience shaped how I would attempt to view the church. As the Lord called me to be a pastor, I realized that he had spoken in the Bible and therefore the Bible alone was my authoritative source for understanding God and people, the world and the church.

    What that meant was that I did not have to cling what I had always believed or wanted to believe was right. Rather, God had spoken about reality and what he said is true, even if it doesn’t always line up with our philosophical and rational preferences. And, even more, God had spoken about the church—about things like pastors and deacons, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, congregationalism and membership. And, what God said was both true and healthiest, even if it didn’t agree with what I’d always heard, what I’d always seen and to “the way we’ve always done things.”

    I resolved at that point to always make my best effort to bring every belief I held and every word I taught in line with the Word of God. I resolved to “throw every theological belief out the window,” unless it was founded on God’s Word. In a way it was scary. I didn’t know where that would lead. Yet, in another sense, it was refreshing and reassuring. I didn’t have to worry about defending what I wanted, I only had to read the Bible and believe what it said.

    Where Do We Turn to Learn?

    Every one of you has an idea about the nature of the local church and things like membership, the Lord’s Supper and baptism. Every one of you has an idea about pastors and deacons, who they are and what they do. And, every one of you probably bases that on one of two things—what you’ve always seen and done and were told, or the witness of the New Testament. I want to challenge you this morning to go back to the Bible on everything you believe—whether that be about salvation or deacons or our Savior Jesus Christ—and build your beliefs on the foundation our Lord has laid in his word.

    It was April of 2006 that I preached at Northbrook in view of being your pastor. So, almost one year ago, many of you were reading over my resume, biography and philosophy of ministry. I introduced my comments on the pastorate with this sentence: “I believe that the New Testament (and not tradition, experience, pragmatics or preference) is the final authority on the role of the pastor in a New Testament church.” I italicized it because wanted to emphasize that Scripture alone was our final authority in deciding how to understand the office of pastor.

    So, with that said, let us go to the Scripture to understand what the New Testament teaches about pastors.

    Titus 1:5-9

    In our passage this morning, Paul is writing to Titus to give him instructions about how to finish ordering the churches they had planted together on the island of Crete. In verse 5, Paul tells Titus, “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you…”

    What are elders?

    The word “elder” is used over 20 times to refer to an office in the local church. In this sense, we could define elders as follows:

    The elders are a group of men, called by God and conformed to the Gospel in sound living and sound doctrine, who are set apart by the congregation to oversee and pastor the local church by teaching, ruling, caring for and equipping the saints, as loving and humble examples of Jesus Christ.

    The Elders…Oversee and Pastor the Local Church.

    I say that “elders…oversee and pastor,” because the terms elder, overseer and pastor are used interchangeably to refer to one office. The terms “elder” (or, presbyter), “overseer” (or, bishop) and “pastor” refer to the same thing. So, we would not separate elders, pastors, and overseers into three different groups with differing functions.

    Scriptural Examples

    In this passage, Titus (1:5, 7), Paul refers to “elders” being appointed in verse 5. In the following verses, he gives qualifications for elders, but in verse 7 he refers to “an overseer.” So here Paul uses “elder” and “overseer” interchangeably as two terms for one office.

    The same is true with the terms “pastor” and “elder.” As far as I can find, the only place where “pastors” are mentioned using that term is Ephesians 4:11, where Paul writes, “he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds (KJV/NAS-pastors) and teachers.” The word “pastor” means “shepherd.”

    In 1 Peter 5:1-2, Peter writes, “So I exhort the elders among you...shepherd (pastor) the flock of God that is among you...” Peter tells the “elders” to “shepherd.” That is the elders are the ones who “pastor” the flock of God.

    In Acts 20, we find all three terms used interchangeably to refer to the same group of people. In verse 17, Paul calls together “the elders of the church.” Then, as he addresses these elders in verse 28 he says, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers…” Paul tells the elders to care for the “flock,” which indicates they are “pastors” (shepherds). And, he refers to the elders as “overseers.” So, we can conclude from several passages that elders, overseers and pastors are the same thing.

    This is historically recognized in our denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. In the Abstract of Principles, which is the first doctrinal statement ever adopted by a Southern Baptist body, we read, “The regular officers of a Church are Bishops or Elders, and Deacons.” Likewise, in the first Baptist Faith and Message, written in 1925, we read of the church, “Its Scriptural officers are bishops, or elders, and deacons.” Bishop and Elder are used interchangeably.

    The Elders are a Group of Men.

    The New Testament pattern is a plurality of elders for each church. That means that there was not “one pastor per church,” but several in every local congregation. There was not “a pastor” and a group of “elders” to assist. But a team of men, who were equally elders, each with equal vote.

    One of the areas that I covered in my philosophy of ministry presented to Northbrook was my understanding of the office of pastor/elder, especially in regard to how many a church should have. I covered this, because it is essential how I understand the church. I wrote:

    The pastors/elders are regularly referred to in the plural (Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5; 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:16; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1, 5). When it is possible (that is, when gifted and called men are available), I believe it is expedient to appoint a plurality of pastors/elders to keep watch over the church, as Paul instructed Titus (Titus 1:5). When such men are not available, I believe it is a pastor's duty to look for such men and to train them for such ministry (2 Timothy 2:1-2). Most of these men will not be paid staff but gifted and called members of the congregation who are essentially permanent in their membership….I know that baptist churches differ in their pastoral structure. I am willing to work within different set-ups, though I will guide the church toward what I feel is a biblical model.

    Plurality - How many ought there to be in a local church?

    When the word “elder” appears in the New Testament and is used in reference to the church office, it appears most often in the plural.

    For example, in Philippians 1:1, Paul and Timothy write to “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.” In 1 Timothy 4:14, Paul refers to the “council of elders” that laid their hands on Timothy. And, in 1 Peter 5:1, Peter address “the elders among you.”

    In our passage, Paul tells Titus to “appoint elders in every town.” That means Titus is to appoint more than one. One could argue that there were multiple churches in every town and that Titus was to appoint an elder in each church in each town, thus “elders in every town.” I think that is doubtful. However, this verse by itself cannot lead us to certainty whether a church should have one elder (a single pastor) or a plurality of elders (a group of elders governing that body).

    Fortunately, the evidence from the rest of the New Testament, when carefully considered, gives us the understanding that it is the New Testament pattern for there to be a plurality of elders in every local congregation.

    In Acts, elders are always mention in the plural (cf 11:30; 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 21:18). Here are a few important examples:

    In Acts 14:23, we read that as Paul and Barnabas visited the disciples in several cities, they “appointed elders for them in every church.” We do not read that they appointed elders in all the churches. Nor do we read that they appointed “an elder” in every church. But, they appointed “elders” (plural) in “every church” (singular). They appointed a plurality of elders in every congregation.

    In the same vein, we read in Acts 20:17 that in Ephesus Paul “called the elders of the church to come to him.” Paul did not call “the elder” of every church. Nor did he call the elders “of the churches.” Rather, he called the “elders” (plural) of “the church” (singular). There was a body of elders in that church.

    In James 5:14, James writes, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” Notice, James does not say to call for “the elder” of the church or for the elders of “the churches.” Rather, he refers to “the elders” (plural) of “the church” (singular).

    Plurality & Baptist History

    The idea of each congregation having a plurality of elders also has roots in baptist history. When the Southern Baptist Convention formed, they elected as their president Dr. William B. Johnson. In 1846, Dr. Johnson wrote a book on local church government[1] in which he concluded, “It is worthy of particular attention, that each church had a plurality of elders…” And, he wrote, “A plurality [of elders] is of great importance for mutual counsel and aid, that the government and edification of the flock may be promoted in the best manner.” Seeing that having a plurality of elders was the biblical model and the best model for caring for a flock, he encouraged churches to follow this pattern.

    Benefits of plurality

    Not only do I think that having a plurality of elders is the biblical model, I think it is the best for a congregation. While a group of sinners will always have problems, I think there are several benefits to a plurality over a single pastor model. That is also why I wrote in my philosophy of ministry:

    From my experiences, both in pastoring alone and in observing a church with a plurality of elders, I feel an elder team holds many advantages, aside from following the pattern of Scripture. It provides accountability, support, counsel, and assistance in the exercise of pastoral duties. It also gives the church permanence in leadership and continuance in ministry that is not upset if the “staff pastor” should be called away. I know my gifts and weaknesses and therefore know that I will minister best as part of a team.

    As another author points out, a plurality of elders: rounds out gifts, makes up for deficits, supplements judgment, creates support, prevents unjust criticism, makes leadership more rooted and permanent, ensures continuity, removes tyranny, reminds the congregation to take responsibility for the spiritual growth of its own members.[2]

    At this point, we might ask: What Kind of Men are We Looking for to be Elders?

    The Elders Are…Called By God.

    The Holy Spirit makes men overseers. When we look for elders, we look for men whom God has called to be elders. We can train people ourselves, but we cannot make an elder. In Acts 20:28, Paul says, “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” So, what will these men look like?

    The Elders Are a Group of Men Conformed to the Gospel

    In this passage in Titus 1:5-9, as well as 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Paul outlines a loose list of qualifications for elders. Since Matt Sees preached through 1 Timothy before I arrived, I will not take you line by line through the requirements, but I will note that the qualifications for a pastor break down into two basic categories.

    Elders are not required to be perfect or to be Supermen. Don Carson points out that these lists are notable only for not being very notable. He means that every quality listed is expected of every believer (except being able to teach and not being a new believer). The standard is not “higher” for elders, so much as this means that elders should live lives that model what every believer should be. Elders must be known for living out what it means to be a Christian.

    …in Sound Living

    An elder must live a life of godliness, evident even to the surrounding culture. In Titus and 1 Timothy, Paul says that elder must be “above reproach.” He should be “a man of one woman;” that is, his relationships with women should be “above reproach.” An elder should be “sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable” and a man who does not get drunk, get violent, get into quarrels, or love money. He should be a good manager of his household, since he is responsible for overseeing the household of God.

    …and Sound Doctrine.

    In addition to his living, an elder must have a firm grasp on the essentials of Christian doctrine and be able to communicate them in order to instruct, defend and correct.

    In 1 Timothy 3, we are told an overseer must be “able to teach.” Here in Titus 1:9, we are told an elder must “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” Elders must be biblically grounded in essential Christian doctrines and the distinctives of their church. This means an elder should be able to explain from Scripture what the Bible teaches on central issues. He must be able to rebuke and correct those who contradict it.

    This does not mean they all must be able to preach publicly. There are many ways in which the word is taught—from the pulpit and sitting in a member’s home. However, a man who is not comfortable teaching and defending from Scripture the faith once for all delivered should not be appointed an elder.

    We do not follow the world’s standards in selecting our leaders.

    We are not Israel looking to have a king “like the nations do.” We are like God, looking not on outward appearances, but on the heart.

    Therefore elders are not simply successful businessmen, older men, long-time, involved members or nice guys.

    Rather, elders must:

    § Embrace and be skilled in teaching/defending the central aspects of the Christian Faith and the Doctrinal Distinctives of the Congregation.

    § Live out the Christian faith in all areas of life.

    § And, as we shall see, Love the congregation. At a minimum, this means that they attend the stated meetings of the church, they disciple younger believers, and they serve selflessly.

    The Elders are…Set Apart By the Congregation.

    We should note that have a plurality of elders is not a negation of congregationalism. The congregation remains the final court of appeals in the matters we mentioned. Therefore, my preaching that a plurality of elders is the biblical model does not mean that we will have one. That decision is left up to you. I will present (at a later date) some suggestions for how to implement this. But until the congregation says that we will do this, we won’t make this change.

    However, there is a tension that must be recognized. The New Testament speaks of elders as leaders with spiritual authority over the congregation. We read that they are to “rebuke, admonish, rule, and exhort.”

    However, while congregationalism stands, the church has certain responsibilities in how they respond to their pastors. The church must:

    • …disobey them when they contradict the Gospel. In Galatians 1, the congregation is held responsible for not rejecting false teachers. Pastors are never to be followed blindly.
    • …recognize their elders as gifts from God. In Ephesians 4:11, we are told that Christ “gave” the church pastor-teachers. They are gifts from God to equip and build up the church and should be received as such. If we ever find ourselves believing that our pastors are not gifts from Christ, we should remove them or remove ourselves.

    (We should also be encouraged by this too. If ever we find ourselves without qualified men, we should ask Christ to give us some. HE gives pastors to the church! Therefore, we can and should ask for them.)

    • …give them heartfelt trust as their leaders and teachers.

    Christians should honor, respect and highly esteem their pastors. In 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, Paul writes, “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work.”

    Likewise, when their leadership is biblical, Christians are told to submit to their leaders. Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”

    Likewise, the elders must recognize that the church belongs to God, not to them. In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the Ephesian elders to “care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

    This means that the pastor must treat the church like a bride—not his bride, but the bride of Christ of whom he has been made a steward and is accountable for. We have all seen situations in which pastors have used churches as vehicles of self-promotion and stepping-stones in a career plan. This is unacceptable and abhorrent.

    This also means that the elders are not free to do whatever they want with the church. The church belongs to God, and therefore God has the final say. Therefore, a pastor must lead as God has led. He cannot say more than what God has said. And, he cannot say less than what God has instructed him to say in the Bible.

    The Elders…Oversee and Pastor the Local Church by Teaching, Ruling, Caring for and Equipping the Saints.

    The function of the elders is to oversee and pastor the church (1 Timothy 3:1; Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). Acts 20:28 says they are to “care for the church.” This means that they give spiritual oversight to the congregation and its members and teach them God’s Word.

    Ephesians 4:11-12 says that they are given “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ.”

    1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of the elders “ruling.” This word “rule” refers to a “soft” kind of ruling, not that of a monarch or dictator. It refers to someone who directs or leads.

    Teaching is the primary means through which all the duties are carried out. Their oversight and ruling are not done through unilateral commands, but through authoritatively “declaring, exhorting, rebuking, teaching, admonishing, correcting and preaching” from the word of God (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:9; 2:5; 1 Thess 5:12-13; 2 Tim 2:24-25; 4:1-2).

    Elders Oversee and Shepherd…As Loving and Humble Examples of Jesus Christ.

    In all of these things, elders must serve as examples of Christ, who is the chief Shepherd.

    1 Peter 5:1-4 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; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

    Jesus Christ lovingly and humbly served as a shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep. He died on a cross for their sins, in their place before being raised from the dead in glory. So elders, while they do not die for the sins of their people, patiently, lovingly and humbly must be willing to bear the burdens of the congregation. They must lay down their lives for the church in this world, so that they can receive an unfading crown of glory in the next.

    If you are an unbeliever, do not put your hope in a pastor. He is only an example—and an imperfect one at that. He cannot save you. Put your hope in the chief Shepherd, who is also the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

    If you are a pastor or believe that God has called you to be one, look to Christ first and foremost as the example of how to love His sheep.

    If you are a church member—let us begin to consider how we might go about instituting a plurality of elders in our congregation. I will propose more at a later time, with opportunity for discussion. But, for now, let us begin with earnest prayer that Christ would bring and call and prepare elders to give to Northbrook for our upbuilding and His glory.



    [1] The Gospel Developed Through the Government and Order of the Churches of Jesus Christ reprinted in Polity, ed. Mark Dever.

    [2] Dever, 9 Marks of a Healthy Church.

    Monday, February 12, 2007

    The Local Church: Congregationalism - Defending & Displaying the Glory of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ

    © Eric M Schumacher – Preached February 11, 2007 at Northbrook Baptist Church, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

    A group of sheep is a flock. A group of geese is a gaggle. A group of cows is a herd. A group of dogs is a pack.

    It doesn’t matter how specifically they are arranged—whether they are in a disordered group or in a straight line or in a circle. If you have a bunch of sheep, you have a flock. If you have a bunch of geese, you have a gaggle. If you have a bunch of cows, you have a herd. If you have a bunch of dogs, you have a pack.

    It is that way with a church? If a gaggle is nothing more than a group of geese, is a church really nothing more than a gathering of Christians? It doesn’t matter how they organize themselves. If you get enough Christians together in one place, isn’t that a church? Or, could it be that God has said something in his word about how Christians are to organize themselves as a local church?

    If you are anything like I was when I was growing up in church, the organization of the church and the government of the local church were not something that I thought much about. Our church was organized and governed one way. The Catholic across the spare lot, the Methodist and Presbyterian churches on Main Street, the Baptist church near my home and the Friends church out in the country were all organized and governed in different ways.

    Even once I was in college and began to take my faith more seriously, the organization and government of the local church didn’t seem to be something that was terribly important. It wasn’t addressed in Scripture (was it?).

    Even if church organization and government is addressed in the Bible, it couldn’t be important enough to study! After all, there are billions of people in the world heading to hell without knowledge of a Savior! How can we justify “wasting time” talking about how to organize and govern a local church! How could such issues be “kingdom issues”!? These issues must be a waste of time.

    Is that what this serious of sermons on the local church is? A distraction? A waste of time? As useful as polishing the brass and rearranging the deck furniture on the sinking Titanic!

    How the local church is to be governed is not something that most Christians have spent much time thinking about or studying. In the book Who Runs the Church?, Sam Waldron offers this observation:

    Like the Ephesian disciples of John the Baptist who told Paul, “We have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:2), many evangelicals tell us by their conduct that they have not even heard whether there is a biblical church government. Without shame, many act as if they were allowed to order “the household of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim 3:15) according to their human traditions, personal tastes, and natural reason.

    We should ask ourselves a question: Do we really believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would leave his most treasured possession in creation, the one institution he said he would build, without any instruction for how we are to structure ourselves and operate? Would Christ really leave his Bride to the mercy of “human traditions, personal tastes, and natural reason”?

    Granted, there is much about the church that the New Testament does not address, which, in some cases, gives us remarkable freedom. And, yes, traditions can be the distilled wisdom of previous generations, useful to teach us. And, yes, there are areas of church life which require us to applied sanctified wisdom to figure out what is best.

    All that considered, I believe that a careful study of the New Testament will reveal that we are given some specifics for how the church is to be organized and governed, by both command and example. And, I firmly believe that how the church is to be governed is not “rearranging the deck furniture on a sinking ship.” I believe that this is an issue of great importance, especially in terms of spreading the Gospel.

    Government
    When we speak of church “government,” we are addressing issues of authority. Where does authority rest in the local church? Who has the final say in issues of doctrine and practice? Is it a King, a Pope, a bishop, a president or a pastor? The deacon board? The elder board? A presbytery, a synod, a conference, an association, or a convention? Who is in charge? Who runs the church?

    Christ
    To begin with, we must note: The government of the church is ultimately a monarchy. Jesus Christ has full and final authority over his church.

    Scripture
    We must also note that: The Lord Jesus Christ has spoken with authority through the writings of his apostles. Therefore, the church is ultimately ruled by Jesus Christ through the instruction of the apostles, as deposited in the Word of God, the Bible. Ultimately, we are not allowed to be ruled by personal tastes and preferences, denominational traditions or “how it has always been.” Ultimately, we must be ruled by the Word of God and not by reason or church tradition.

    Most would agree with that statement, at least in principal, if not practice. What this boils down to is the question—who decides what the Word says the church should do? When push comes to shove in the church, what earthly human authority gets to make the decisions for the local church? (I say that as a figure of speech, hopefully we do not literally push and shove!)

    Congregationalism
    Baptists, which we are at Northbrook, have historically held to a position called “congregationalism.” The Baptist Faith and Message (the statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention) states that “a New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of believers…” The local congregation of believers is “autonomous.” “Autonomous” means “self-governing” and “independent.”

    This does not mean that we get to make up our own rules. This statement goes on to say that we operate “under the Lordship of Christ,” which means we submit to the Word of God.

    What this does mean is that under the Lordship of Christ, the local congregation is sovereign over its own affairs. This means that no association or conference, no convention or denomination, no other local church, nor even its ‘mother church’ has authority to tell a local church what it must do or believe. There is no hierarchy above the local church.

    Simply put, a congregationalist holds that the local congregation is the final human authority in the life of the local church. Mark Dever offers this helpful explanation:

    Congregationalism is simply the understanding that the last and final court of appeal in a matter of the life of the local church is not the bishop of Rome or Constantinople or Washington. It is not some international body, or some national Assembly, Conference or Convention. It is not the president of a denomination or the chairman of a board of trustees. It is not a regional synod or ministerial association. It is not a group of elders inside the local church, or the pastor. The last and final court of appeal in the matter of the life of the local church is, and should be, the local congregation itself.[1]

    Biblical Defense
    Of course, all I have done so far is to define and describe congregationalism using a quotes from a few men and a statement of faith. It ultimately does not matter what men say, if the Word of God does not say the same. So, we must ask and answer the question:

    “To Whom Does the New Testament Give the Final (Human) Authority in the Life of the Local Church?”
    I believe that the New Testament defends congregationalism, giving the final (human) authority to the local congregation, the membership of the local church.

    Priesthood of all believers -
    It should not surprise us that some authority is invested in every believer when he or she is gathered together with the body as a whole. After all, the New Testament calls believers “a holy and royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5, 9). We are told that Jesus Christ has made believers “priests to his God and Father” (Rev 1:6) who “shall reign on the earth” (Rev 5:10) as “priests of God and of Christ” (Rev 20:6).

    The priesthood of all believes places great dignity upon the believer. Such dignity, that Sam Waldron writes, “The dignity of every believer is such a pervasive emphasis of the New Testament that we would be surprised if their consent was not required in the matters discussed above. Even, therefore, without the explicit passages cited above, we might have good ground to suppose that the consent of the church was necessary in matters of the church’s membership and officers.”[2]

    We should be careful about looking down our noses with haughty suspicion at the masses of "unseminaried," common Christians, for these are those whom Christ the Lord has made “kings and priests unto God!”

    Letters to Churches
    Before looking at specific passages of Scripture, we would do well to note that the majority of the New Testament letters are written to local congregations. While “elders” and “deacons” are addressed along with the church (in Phillipians), we have no letter specifically written to an “elder board” or a “deacon board.” We do, however, have many letters written to local congregations.

    It is also worth mentioning that there is not even a passing reference to pastors or deacons in either First or Second Corinthians, though both certainly existed at the time. It would seem that, in such a troubled congregation, Paul’s first priority would be to get the pastors to “set things straight.” Yet, again and again, in addressing problem after problem, Paul does not appeal to the pastor, but to the congregation.

    Areas of Congregational Authority–
    The New Testament gives the final (human) authority to the congregation in at least five areas:

    1) Doctrine.
    Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to maintain the purity of the church’s doctrine. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians (1:8-9), he writes:

    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

    Paul calls upon, not the pastors, but the congregation to judge angelic and apostolic preaching! The congregation is responsible for judging the message that is preached and rejecting the preacher if his message denies the Gospel that Paul preached.

    In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul writes that the church—not the pastor—is a “pillar and buttress of truth.” The church is responsible for upholding and protecting the truth of the Gospel.

    This does not mean that there is no place for leaders to teach, rebuke and correct. Pastors are called upon in Scripture to do so. Nevertheless, in the end, final responsibility is placed on the congregation to maintain the purity of the Gospel.

    2) Discipline
    Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to discipline unrepentant members.
    Mark Dever offers this observation of the passages dealing with discipline:

    Notice to whom one finally appeals in such situations. What court has the final word? It is not a bishop, a pope, or a presbytery; it is not an assembly, a synod, a convention, or a conference. It is not even a pastor or board of elders, a board of deacons or a church committee. It is, quite simply, the church—that is, the assembly of those individual believers who are the church.[3]

    Concerning how to address a sinning brother, our Lord taught:

    Matthew 18:15-20 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

    Notice that, in this passage, the “church”—not a board of pastors—is the final court of appeals. The church has the final say.

    Now, I have heard people say that using this passage to defend congregationalism is “unconvincing.” They claim that all this passage is teaching is that the congregation lends their voice the disciplinary decisions of the elders. It is not enough to simply claim something is “unconvincing.” We must actually deal with the text. And, the view that this is the congregation “lending their voice” does not stand up under such examination.
    First, we should note that the church is “speaking.” Jesus says, “if he refuses to listen even to the church.” Jesus speaks of the church as the final court of appeal with a sense of seriousness that one would not listen “even” to the church. Christ does not say, “If he refuses to listen to the pastors,” but “even to the church.” In fact, “elders” are not even mentioned in this verse! (It is odd that some find this passage “unconvincing” for a defense of congregationalism and opt for a “congregation supporting the elders” view when elder are not even mentioned! This seems to be more convenient than exegetical. The burden rests on them to show where elders even enter into the process.)

    Likewise, when the Apostle Paul applies our Lord’s instruction to the Corinthian church, we see no mention of pastors/elders in the disciplinary process, but only an appeal to the congregation to take authoritative action.

    In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul addresses the situation of a man in unrepentant sexual immorality. Like Jesus, Paul no where addresses church leaders. Instead, he appeals to the assembly of believers.

    In verse 2, Paul rebukes the congregation for not acting and calls upon them to remove the sinner.

    In verses 4-5, Paul calls upon the church—when they are gathered together—to deliver the man to Satan for destruction in hopes of repentance.

    In verse 7, Paul tells the congregation to cleanse out the old leaven.

    In verse 11, Paul tells the congregation not to association with those who claim to be Christians but live in overt, unrepentant sin.

    In verses 12-13, Paul tells the congregation to judge those inside the church and to purge the evil person from amongst them.

    This is the consistent witness of New Testament texts dealing with discipline. This is not to say that pastors play no part in the process or that we are not allowed to involve them. Of course, there is wisdom in involving those that God has called to watch over us! Nevertheless, we cannot miss the fact that the final appeal and responsibility for dealing with unrepentant sin is given to the church, not its leaders.

    3) Disputes
    Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to settle disputes between believers.
    In 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, we find that believers were apparently taking each other to court over disagreements. Paul writes:

    When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

    Paul is flabbergasted that believers would allow unbelievers to judge their disputes. The saints are going to judge the world and angels—therefore they can certainly judge trivial, earthly cases between believers! (Again, we must be careful before looking down our noses at and distrusting the congregation of those who will judge the world!) The final responsibility for settling disputes in the church is given to the church.

    4) Membership
    Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to decide who is a member of the church.
    In 2 Corinthians 2:6-8, we read:

    For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.

    Paul is apparently addressing a situation in which the congregation has administered discipline against a man. Now, Paul is encouraging them to welcome him back into their fellowship.

    It was “the majority” that punished him. Church discipline does not and cannot happen without the church! Likewise, it is not the Apostle Paul’s decision, only his counsel, to welcome the man back. The congregation is the one responsible for allowing a person membership into their fellowship.

    We learn here, that the congregation has the final say over who is in and out of the church.

    5) Election/Removal of Officers, Missionaries, Congregational Representatives
    Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to choose its own officers, missionaries and congregational representatives.

    In Acts 6, a dispute arises amongst the widows regarding the daily distribution of food. To resolve the problem, the Apostles offer their wisdom to the congregation, telling them to pick out seven men to handle the distribution.

    This counsel “pleased the whole gathering” and they—the assembled church—chose the first seven deacons. The church was responsible for choosing its deacons.

    Likewise, in 2 Timothy 4:2-3 Paul writes, “the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions…” This is an example of believers exercising their authority in a wrong way. Nevertheless, in this passage and elsewhere (Galatians 1), Paul holds the congregation final responsible for the teachers it selects. The church is responsible for choosing its preachers.

    In the book of Acts, in chapters 11 and 15, we see that it is the congregation that chooses its missionaries and send them out.

    In 1 Corinthians 16, the church is responsible for accrediting those who will carry their offering to Jerusalem.

    Final responsibility is place on the congregation to choose its own officers, missionaries and representatives. While there certainly are Scripture qualifications that must be followed, the congregation is responsible for heeding this and making a decision.

    All these responsibilities have been given to the church. We are not allowed to slouch in our duties or to shove them off on someone else.

    Clarifications
    Lest we misunderstand and misapply this teaching, we need to clarify what this does not mean. Congregationalism does not mean that:
    …the church is infallible in its decisions!
    Congregationalism does not mean that whatever the church votes to do is right. Christ governs us through His word. A unanimous vote that goes against the Word is one-hundred percent wrong, all the time.

    Congregationalism obviously does not mean that the church will make no mistakes or never abuse their authority! Obviously, in 2 Timothy 4:3 the congregation selects wrong leaders! We are an imperfect church and—we will be until our Lord returns. Therefore, we should strive to be holy and biblical.

    …the church is a radical democracy, popular sovereignty (or committee of the whole).
    Congregationalism does not mean that the church assembles for a congregational vote on every decision that ever has to be made.

    One of the things that scares people about congregationalism is the prospect of 5-hour business meetings in which the congregation macro-manages every minute aspect of the body’s life! Obviously, we are not required to have a vote for which passage is to be preached on next and how Sunday School classes should do their prayer requests.

    It simply means that the final court of appeals, especially when faith or practice are in dispute, is the congregation.

    …there are no leaders within the church.
    There are real leaders in the church with real authority.
    Hebrews 13:17 says plainly, “Obey your leaders and submit to them…” There are leaders in the church that are to be “obeyed.” This, admittedly, is a point of tension. We must work out how pastoral authority and congregational authority relate. I hope to address this further when we look at the office of the pastor in a sermon to come later.

    For now, I will say that it seems that the congregation is responsible for discerning who God has called and gifted to be its pastor. When a congregation calls its pastors, it is their recognition and affirmation that God has given them this person as a leader. If that is sincere, this calls for them to give their trust to this leader. They are still responsible to hold that leadership in check, should the pastor conflict with the doctrine of the Bible. Yet, the congregation is called upon to follow the lead of the one they recognize God has given them as a leader.

    ...there is no cooperation with other local churches in associations, conventions, etc.
    When we say that the church is “independent,” we do not mean that the local church acts as if it were alone in the world.

    We recognize that there are some things that can be done better when we cooperate with other churches. We recognize that it is often useful to pool our resources to work together for the sake of missions and evangelism. So, we can cooperate in the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention.

    We see examples of this in the New Testament, such as 2 Corinthians 8:19, where it is the “churches” (plural) that appoint Titus to travel with Paul.

    We recognize that it is useful to pool our resources for education. So we cooperate with other believers to fund seminaries and Christian schools.

    We recognize that it is most useful to pool our resources to do disaster relief. So we cooperate with the Disaster Relief arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, rather than being “Lone Rangers” trying to do it all ourselves. Titus to travel with Paul

    Implications
    When we look at the areas which God has entrusted to the congregation, I think it shows why studying what the Bible has to say about church government is important.

    God has entrusted to the congregation—the assembled church—the purity of the church and the purity of the Gospel. We, as a body, are responsible to watch over each other. We, as a body, are responsible for watching over the doctrine that is taught.

    The church does not exist merely for your good. It does exist for your good. But, it exists for more than that. The church exists to defend and to display the Glory of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When the church is compromised, it puts the Gospel at risk. When the church fails to carry out its responsibilities, it puts the Gospel at risk. This means that:

    1) The purity of the church must be maintained.
    If the church is responsible for defending and displaying the Glory of God in the Gospel, then it is very important that the church consist of people who are actually born again and give evidence of loving Christ. This is why it is important to have formal membership—we must know who can and cannot participate in these important responsibilities.

    A church roll that is full of unrepentant and unregenerate persons constitutes a compromised church. A comprised church will comprise the Gospel.

    2) You must actively participate as an informed member of the church!
    You cannot be a lazy member of the church. You, Christian, are responsible, together with the assembled body—for watching over the Gospel and each other.

    This means that you must be present and alert, participating in the life of the body. This means that you must be studying the Bible so that you can recognize error when it appears.

    The church exists to defend and to display the Glory of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Do you love God’s glory in the gospel of Jesus Christ? If so, will you demonstrate it by being an present and active, informed and caring member of the church?

    -------------------------------------------------------
    [1] A Display of God’s Glory, p 32-33.
    [2] Who Runs the Church?
    [3] Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 221

    Monday, February 5, 2007

    The Local Church (2): Why You Ought to be a Formal and Active Member of a Local Church

    © Eric M Schumacher – Preached February 4, 2007 at Northbrook Baptist Church, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

    In his satirical, tongue-in-cheek book, A Field Guide to Evangelicals and Their Habitat, Joel Kirkpatrick offers this side-bar on the importance of numbers in evangelical church life:

    Evangelicals are highly competitive about church size. Some churches calculate their size by the number of people who attend on Sunday morning. Others count all the people they “touch” in any given week, including those visited in the hospital, those sent bulk mailings, and those prayed for. It is easy for a church of 100 to claim thousands of members by spreading itself around a bit.

    Baptist churches are particularly adept at this. They define a member as any person, alive or dead, who visited the church once in the past thirty years, plus all his or her relatives, whose existence need not be verified. For this reason, Southern Baptists, a group of about 21,000 nationwide, have long boasted the largest membership of any Protestant denomination, about 15 million. That muffled sound you hear is dead Baptists in their graves applauding their membership superiority.

    Is that what membership is all about? Is it us, as a denomination or a local church, showing by our numbers that we are superior to the church down the street? It could be. We need to be careful in our discussions on membership. We must be biblical, and not merely pragmatic or traditional, or we could in up with something that looks more like the worship of numbers than a house built to worship the Lord.

    Formal, Active Membership

    Last Sunday, we began to take a look at the topic of the local church. I argued that it is healthiest, wisest and most biblical for us to emphasize, encourage and practice formal, active membership. I offered a few biblical defenses of formal membership.

    By formal membership, I meant that the member officially declares his commitment to fellowship in a particular local church and that local church officially declares their acceptance of that person into their fellowship. Usually, this is done through a membership list, or some other way of having a means of clearly defining who is and who is not a member.

    While I believe that what I said last week is right and is therefore important, I want to emphasize that what I said last week about formal membership is not enough. Having one’s name on the membership list of a local church is only the beginning.

    This is why I say that we should have formal, active church membership. Without our membership being active, our formal membership is both meaningless and dangerous to the church and the individual.

    Active Membership

    Last week, I defined active membership in this way: By active, I mean that members regularly attend and participate in that local church, unless they are providentially hindered (that is, prevented by circumstances beyond their control). This means that as a formal member, you covenant with other Christians to meet together to worship the Lord and to carry out his teachings. As an active member, you actually carry out the promises you made—you attend and use your gifts in the life of the body.

    The SBC

    This might seem logical. After all, if you are going to join something, why wouldn’t you be active? You don’t become a member at a golf course, unless you actually intend to play golf! You don’t become a member of a book club unless you plan to read a book! Likewise, you can’t be a member of many organizations unless you actually show up and participate.

    While it seems logical, it is something that many churches in the last century have had a difficult time comprehending. A 2004 study of the Strategic Information and Planning department of the Sunday School Board reported that of the Southern Baptist Convention’s then 16,287,494 members, only 6,024,289 (or, 37%) attended the primary worship meeting of the church. Beyond that, only 12.3% of the membership attended something more than a once a week meeting.[1]

    The average Southern Baptist congregation is about 233 members, with 70 in attendance on Sunday mornings. This leads one concerned observer to ask: “Where are the other 163 members? Are they all at home sick, in a rest home, at college, on vacation, or in the military? Maybe some are, but all 163 of them?”[2]

    The practice of inactive membership makes membership both meaningless and dangerous. Last week I defined membership as:

    Membership is the individual believer’s public statement that he affirms and commits to the faith and practice of a local church and promises to join actively with that body. It is the local church’s public statement that the individual is a believer who evidences repentance and faith and that it accepts this person into their fellowship.

    Formal membership is an individual’s affirmation of and commitment to a local congregation of believers.

    On the one hand, formal vows that are not lived out are worse than meaningless, they are lies. If you are a person who is a formal member of a church that you do not attend, I would ask one favor of you today. Contact the pastor of the church where your membership resides. Ask him to send you a copy of the church covenant (if they have one) or a copy of the promises made when a person becomes a member. Ask him to send you an outline of what a member of that church is expected to do. Then, ask yourself if your formal membership in that church is a reflection of a living commitment, or if your membership is a lie.

    On the other hand, you cannot, with any integrity, make an honest, public affirmation of an individual or a congregation that you do not see. If we never see those on our membership list, how do we know that we’re not lying? How do you know that that church is remaining faithful to the Scriptures in its faith and practice if you are not there to observe it? If you don’t attend, how do you know what they preach, teach, and do? How do you know that you can be a part of it? Yet, your membership says that you believe it is.

    Likewise, how do we know that an individual is holding fast to the faith and following Christ, if we never see them? Yet, by continuing to have them on our rolls, we make just that statement.

    This is why I say that inactive membership is so dangerous. By granting membership, we give our formal declaration that we believe John Doe is saved, while his habitual actions show evidence that he probably is not. Yet, he sleeps sound at night because The First Baptist Church of Such-n-Such has formally declared him a Christian.

    Biblical Defense

    Those reasons are mainly practical, though important. I want to offer a few strong biblical reasons for why you should be actively involved in a local church.

    1) Because the Bibles commands—through example and by direct statement—your active devotion to a local church.

    The example of the earliest Christians, which seems to hold true throughout the New Testament, is found in Acts 2:

    Acts 2:41-42 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

    It was simply assumed that once you believed you were baptized. And, after you were baptized, you devoted yourself to joining with other believers to hear God’s Word taught, to encourage each other, to take the Lord’s Supper and to pray together, weekly and more often when possible.

    We have more than examples, however. We have a direct command to be actively involved in a local church.

    Hebrews 10:24-25 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

    We are commanded not to neglect to meet together. This “meeting together” refers to what we heard from Acts 2—a regular assembly of believers who devote themselves to meeting together for these things.

    2) The gifts of the Spirit cannot be rightly used without being active in a church.

    In several passages in 1 Corinthians (12:4-11; 14:12), Paul makes it clear that the Spirit gives gifts that are intended for the “common good” and the “building up of the church.” The context makes it clear that Paul is speaking of the local church. If you are not using your gifts to serve the local church, you are not using your gifts as the Spirit intends.

    On a side note that supports formal membership, you should join a church because many ministry opportunities are available to church members only. This is because the church needs a way of knowing that you are united with her in doctrine and practice. The church cannot be appointing people to serve or teach if they do not know if their faith and lifestyle matches what the church believes. You may have attended a church for thirty years, but unless you’ve formally declared your agreement and support, how do they know where you stand.

    So, be an active member of a church so that you can put your spiritual gifts to right use amongst God’s people. John MacArthur, in his defense of church membership states, “Not joining the church is saying, ‘I don’t want to serve the only institution Christ ever built.’”

    3) The “one another” commands of Scripture require it.

    In our bulletin, I’ve printed an insert of 40-some commands in the English Standard Version of the Bible that contain the phrase “one another.” One author has counted 58 in the New Testament. Of course, there are other commands that have the same effect and don’t use this phrase. But, this allows for a quick overview of what the Bible commands regarding our relationship with other believers.

    Wayne Mack makes three observations regarding these commands:
    1. They are commands. In other words, if we’re not doing these things, we’re in disobedience.
    2. They are all in the present tense. This means they are things we should be continually doing.
    3. Most of these commands are given to local churches.
    A “one another” command requires you to have “another” person in order to carry it out. The fact that most of these commands are given in letters written to local churches show that they are referring to the relationships that Christians have within the church. If, therefore, you withdraw yourself from involvement in the local church, you withdraw yourself from obedience to these commands. Mack concludes, “It’s impossible to understand how these commands may be truly fulfilled towards other believers without committed involvement in a local church.”

    4) Because wise and righteous people welcome and pursue accountability, while the stupid and self-seeking avoid and hate it.

    Wayne Mack comments, “I believe that one major reasons that the church of Jesus Christ in the United States is very close to being in sheer chaos today is because so many people think of themselves as individuals rather than as part of the body of Christ. Christianity is not ‘every man for himself’; it’s every man together for Christ.”

    The local church is God’s appointed means of fellowship and accountability. When we avoid the local church, we avoid accountability.

    Proverbs 18:1 Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment.

    The man who avoids fellowship (isolates himself) does so because he is seeking his own desire and is going against sound judgment (he is foolish).

    Psalm 141:5 Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me--it is oil for my head; let my head not refuse it.

    Proverbs 9:8-9 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.

    Proverbs 12:1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

    A righteous and wise man understands that his heart is prone to leave the God he loves. Therefore, he sees the “strikes” and “rebukes” (that something like church membership and discipline afford) as kindness and as the anointing of oil on his head. In order to have such accountability from fellow believers, it is necessary that we gather together with them.

    If you are a wise and righteous person, you want accountability. Active membership in a local church is a means of getting that accountability.

    5) Because habitually meeting together for mutual encouragement is God’s means of keeping us in the faith.

    In Hebrews 10, the author of Hebrews is writing to Christians who have experienced severe persecution (see verses 32-34).

    In verse 23 he encourages these Christians not to allow persecution to keep them abandoning their faith. Rather, he writes, “let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.” The author’s goal is that these Christians remain faithful to their confession of faith. Question: Why is it so important that they “hold fast the confession of their hope”?

    It is important that they “hold fast the confession” because genuine faith perseveres to the end. Those who claim to believe for a little while and then “set aside” the faith show that they were never truly “born again” in the first place. This is the argument that the author unfolds as the chapter progresses.

    See verses 26-31. Those who go on living in willful, unrepentant sin after hearing the gospel cannot expect to have their sins covered by Christ’s sacrifice. Rather, they can only expect “judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.”

    He makes this claim based off of the Old Covenant law. If someone had the law of Moses and then “set it aside,” that is they disregarded it and lived in disobedience to it, then they were sentenced to death. He argues then, if someone receives such a severe punishment for setting aside the law of Moses, how much worse a punishment is deserved by the one who has the Gospel of Jesus Christ and then, after claiming to believe it and live according to it for a little while, sets it aside—spurning the Son of God, profaning his blood, and outraging the Spirit of grace!? This person, who sets aside the gospel of Jesus Christ to live in disobedience, will be repaid in God’s vengeance and will fall into the hands of the living God.

    In verses 32-35, the author reminds these Christians of how they had already persevered through persecutions and sufferings. He reminds them in verse 36 that they have “need of endurance” so that they may receive what is promised—the inheritance of salvation.

    Those who do not endure in the faith do not receive the promised salvation. That is the frightening truth outlined in the rest of the chapter. In verse 38, he quotes the Old Testament to show that the Lord says, “my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” What happens to the one who shrinks back? Verse 39 tells us that he is “destroyed.”

    So, this is why the author makes this earnest plea in verse 23, “Let us hold fast the confession o four hope without wavering…” If we do not hold to the confession of faith, then we will set aside Christ, we will shrink back, we will not endure, we will not receive what is promised, and we will be destroyed! Salvation is at stake in holding to the confession of faith!

    What does all this have to do with being an active part of a local church? Look at verses 23-25. After encouraging them to “hold fast the confession of our faith,” he encourages them to find ways to help each other to do that. “Let us consider how to stir one another to love and good works.” Christians are to be strategic and intentional in their efforts to find ways to help each other show love and do good deeds, which are the outworking and evidence of “holding fast the confession.”

    Notice verse 25. The author clarifies how to stir one another up by adding, “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” Some had evidently quit assembling with the local body of believers for fear of persecution. The author does not want this because you cannot encourage each other unless you meet with each other.

    Notice that—neglecting to meet together and encouragement cannot co-exist. If you do not meet together, then you cannot encourage each other. (This is one reason why we all must be intentional about visiting and encouraging members whose health and circumstances do not allow them to come here!)

    Follow the logic of this passage: If you do not meet together, then you cannot encourage one another. If you do not encourage one another, you are not stirring up one another to love and good deeds. This encouragement is God’s ordained means for keeping his people in the faith. If we are not encouraged, we will not hold fast the confession of the faith. If we do not hold fast the confession of the faith, we have spurned the Son of God, profaned his blood, outraged the Spirit and shrank back. If we do these things, then all that remains for us is the fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire and our own destruction in the hands of a God who takes no pleasure in us.

    This is why it is so important that you regularly attend a local congregation of believers! Going to church will not save you. We are saved by God’s grace through believing that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead. We do not put our hope in our works or religious practices, but in Jesus Christ alone.

    However, true faith in Jesus Christ will persevere unto the end. All true believers will hold fast to the confession of our hope. One of the means that God has given to preserve and persevere the faith of his people is the encouragement that comes through the assembly of believers.

    Therefore, attending church will not save you. However, attending church is one of God’s means of grace for keeping you in the faith through which you are saved. To forsake meeting together with the local church may be a sign that you have forsaken the faith or are about to.

    Simply by showing up and participating in the corporate service of worship, you are encouraging other believers to press on in the faith. Even if you are physically unable to participate in any other ministry of the church, your attendance is a declaration to other (younger!) believers that this faith is worth persevering in.

    Likewise, your absence (if it is without good reason) sends a message to other believers and the world about how worthwhile the faith is. John MacArthur asks, “How wonderful can Christ be if we’re not even committed to being associated with His church?”

    So, for the sake of your own soul and for the encouragement of others, be an active, attending member of a church.

    There is much more that could be said in regard to why you need to be active in a local church, but time does not permit me to do so. So, I will conclude with one final reason that is especially fitting this morning.

    6) The meaning of the Lord’s Supper requires active love for the church.

    In 1 Corinthians 11:20, Paul writes, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.” First, I’d have you notice that Paul does not say, “When you come together for the purpose of eating the Lord’s supper,” he simply says, “when you come together.” One of the things this implies is that taking the Lord’s supper was something that the early church observed every time they came together. The contemporary practice of having the Lord’s Supper once a year or once a quarter is hard pressed to find a basis for such infrequency from the Scriptures.

    Paul says that it is not the Lord’s supper that they eat because of the way that they treat each other. Sure, they are “formal” members of the Corinthian church. And, they are even “regular attenders” in the church—they regularly attend when there is a meal.

    However, they are failing to live out what the Lord’s supper means. The Lord’s supper is a remembrance of what Jesus Christ did to redeem his people—he shed his blood and died on a cross for their sins. In John 17, Jesus’ final prayer for his people was that they would be “one” and that his love would be in them. This follows on Jesus new commandment to his people that they love each other the way that he has loved them.

    The Corinthian church was taking the Lord’s supper while their actions displayed self-centeredness and a lack of concern for others in the body. When the Lord’s supper is taken by people who are not actively living out love for one another, then it ceases to be “the Lord’s supper.” Worse, it brings the discipline of the Lord upon the congregation.

    When we neglect to attend and be active members of a church, we neglect to love each other. When we allow our church rolls to be filled with people who have forsaken the “assembling of ourselves together,” then our membership has ceased to be an expression of love for one another. When 70% of a church’s membership is habitually absent from the gathering of the body and nothing is done, that church has failed to love them biblically. When we fail to love each other, we make a mockery of the Lord’s supper—and what it represents; we mock our Savior’s body and blood.

    We must not be content to have a membership list and ask people to join. We must commit ourselves to actively living out all that that membership means as we commit to being accountable to one another as we gather to worship the Lord and live out His word as members of one another.

    If you are actively living out your faith in a crucified and risen Savior by being a member of a community of believers, then please join with us today as we eat this meal.



    [1] As quoted in Jim Elliff, “Southern Baptists, an Unregenerate Denomination.”

    [2] Mark Dever, A Display of God’s Glory.