Baptists and Elders

I am pleased this week, while on vacation, to have Jeff Cavanaugh as a guest blogger on Pastor and People. Jeff is someone I have grown to appreciate not only as a theologian, thinker, and writer but also as a dear friend. I trust you will enjoy his posts and be encouraged by his words.

Baptists and Elders by Jeff Cavanaugh

In today’s evangelical world, it seems most people don’t give a lot of thought to how the Bible says that the church should be governed and led. For those in established denominations, those conversations are several hundred years in the past. For those in non-denominational churches, the assumption seems to be that whatever works or is most effective is generally what should be done. As Mark Dever makes clear in the last chapter of Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, however, God has in fact given us a pattern for church leadership in His Word, the Bible. Those of us who value the Bible and intend to submit to its rule in all of faith and life would do well to understand and follow the Biblical model of church leadership.

First of all, leadership within the church is to be understood in a congregational context. That is, the congregation as a whole has final responsibility and authority for the most important and clear things in the life of the body, such as matters of doctrine and discipline. Within this congregational context, however, we are to submit to the leadership of a plurality of godly men-elders-who demonstrate good and godly character, knowledge of God’s Word, ability to teach, and concern for the good of the whole church. These men should have spiritual gifts that they are dedicated to using to build up the congregation. They exercise various roles in relation to the church-bosses, examples, suppliers, and servants. Biblical church leadership reflects God’s character as it shows a model of Christians submitting to the authority God has in himself and the authority he has delegated to church leaders on earth.

So, if your church doesn’t have elders who lead in this way, is that really such a bad thing? What’s the problem with, for example, the way most Baptist churches are structured with a pastor (the sole elder, in a sense) and deacons which serve with a mix of spiritual leadership and meeting physical needs? Are there any good reasons for a church to undertake the challenging task of changing its leadership structure? As a matter of fact, there are several real and potential problems with such a structure, not all of which are listed here.

First, and most importantly, it simply isn’t the model that Jesus has ordained for His church in the Bible. If we believe in the inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture, we have a duty to follow its dictates in every area where it speaks to our lives and our churches. Polity-church government and leadership-is one area where the Bible does clearly tell us what to do, and we should obey. Remember that because of the congregational nature of the church, obeying the Bible as a congregation is something for which we all are responsible, and for which we are all to blame if we don’t.

Second, when men-like a board of deacons-who are not recognized by the congregation as elders have a share in the leading of the congregation, there can be an unhelpful confusion regarding who actually is in charge. On one hand, the pastor, who has the responsibility of preaching God’s word as an elder, should naturally be seen as one who should be looked to and obeyed as a leader. On the other hand, God never intended that a single man should bear the whole burden of leading a congregation, and a pastor who is appropriately humbled by God’s word will naturally turn to others-such as deacons-to help him with that burden.

Third, there can be an unhelpful confusion regarding the role that deacons are to play in the church. The New Testament is fairly clear-and Baptists historically understood-that deacons are not the ones who are to be in charge of the teaching and leadership of the church. They aren’t required to be skilled in understanding and teaching the Word of God as elders are, and they have another role that is clearly outlined in the Bible. They are to serve the physical and organizational needs of the church, taking the burden of “waiting tables” off of those whose duty it really is to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word.

Fourth, when the pastor and the deacons both have a degree of spiritual leadership, it can sometimes produce a tension-at worst, an outright struggle-between them over the leadership of the church. While this is certainly possible with elders as well, it is less likely where the pastor understands himself to be-and is understood by the congregation as-only one of several elders, each with an equal share of the burden of ministry, and each with a duty to respect and submit to the others.

Fifth, when there is not a plurality of elders in the local church, the pastor almost always finds himself with an impossible load, as the entire burden of the ministry is on his shoulders. He is particularly vulnerable to criticism for initiatives he might take to lead the church in new directions. If the church is larger than even just a few dozen members, it can be nearly impossible for the pastor to know the congregation well enough to care for them spiritually as an under-shepherd of the flock should.

So, for obedience to the Bible, for clarity on who’s in charge, for clarity regarding the role of deacons, for unanimity in leadership, and for the relief of the pastor, consider leading your church to adopt a plurality of elders. These are just a few reasons, and there are many more. Making that sort of move may be difficult, and so it should be approached deliberately, with great wisdom and much faithful teaching of the congregation. If done wisely, however, regaining the Biblical model of plural eldership can have great fruit for your church and for the whole Bride of Christ.

____________________

Jeff Cavanaugh is pursuing a Master of Divinity at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Originally from central Ohio, he graduated from Patrick Henry College with a degree in Government. Before moving to Louisville, he spent some time in Washington, D.C. where he interned at Capitol Hill Baptist Church and worked for the White House handling presidential correspondence. He is a member at Third Avenue Baptist Church and hopes to pursue pastoral ministry after finishing seminary. He is married to a wonderful wife, Andrea.

 

Filed under: Baptist, Elder, Guest Blogger, The Church

Evaluating the Invitation System

Preachers of the gospel seem to see a great necessity in reaping an immediate harvest of their preaching labors. There is an emotion built up in an evangelistic sermon with phrases like, “come to Christ,” “fly to Christ,” “repent of your sin now and embrace Jesus as your personal Savior and Lord.” Even though these direct appeals are very biblical when used in the wrong way they seem to foster in the mind that we must see people visibly coming to Christ at the end of the sermon. Because how else are they going to come? The appeal to “come forward” seems to be the climax of any evangelistic service where true evangelical people are represented. Many would say the service is not complete and something great and most important is missing if a public appeal to come forward is not issued. But is this a Scriptural practice and one to be implemented in all evangelistic and even non-evangelistic services?

During several years of ministry and preaching I have visibly seen many come forward during the invitation appeal to receive Christ; many continue to this day in a vibrant Christian life that began during that moment. In all that is done in ministry, first and foremost I want to be Scriptural. In evaluating the invitation system the text that one may struggle with is Mathew 10:32 where Jesus says, “Whosoever shall confess me before men…” This verse seems to confirm that the calling forward of people at the end of a sermon is in direct line with the ministry and commands of Christ. If one is unwilling to confess Christ before others they in turn cannot become a Christian. However, in reading Iain Murray’s little Banner of Truth booklet, The Invitation System, I discovered that perhaps the conclusion drawn from this verse was incorrect. Is Christ saying that by an act of confession of who He is that we become Christians or that an indispensable mark of a Christian is to confess Him before men? Murray helped me discover that the modern call to come forward and confess Christ was a reversal of the New Testament order. To confess Christ was the duty of a Christian and no outward duties, including walking forward, will help us to become Christians.

In considering these conclusions drawn I began to ponder the numerous people I have seen walk forward at the end of a service only to return to their pew no different than when they went forward. It is in the mind of all lost people, and even mine at one point, that the act of walking to the front at the preachers bidding and standing before the congregation of the church will somehow change your life and cause a transformation to occur; transformation that only Christ can accomplish. Many equate walking forward as part of the process of becoming a Christian. This should not be so. To come to Christ has nothing to do with walking forward but everything to do with the obedience to Scripture to repent of sins and embrace Christ as Savior and Lord.

Do I believe the invitation can be valuable in many church services? Yes, but if a proper evaluation of the church was taken, one will find that most come to Christ in other realms of the church life than they do at the public invitation at the end of the sermon. Whether it is in one-on-one personal evangelism, the individual personally coming to the preacher with questions, or even after the service is over. Many are baptized in my own church that came to Christ in other avenues of church life, whom I have never seen walk forward during the invitation.

Do I believe appeals from the pulpit to come to Christ and the necessity to head the warning for those to refuse to do so? Yes. Do I believe the preacher should call for one to consider accepting Christ in salvation? Yes. Do I believe the minister should labor and preach on sin, repentance, salvation, the cross, the blood of Christ as all necessary for salvation? Yes. However, I do not believe that we should equate walking forward at the end of the service as the duty of the lost to find, seek or receive Christ in salvation. This is dangerous and can, in many cases, cause great confusion and deception in the heart. The practice of the invitation needs to be very clear that it is not salvation nor will one receive such when they come to the front. The invitation is nothing more or nothing less than calling upon the hearers to consider the claims of the gospel and make further inquirer into how one might receive salvation.

Each service should come to the conclusion at the same place it began, in seeking God in prayer to do something mighty and wonderful in the midst. At the end of each service there should be a strong pastoral prayer that engages the hearts and minds of all in the congregation bringing the worship and sermon to a final conclusion at the throne of grace. Provide a place for people with further inquires to come after service that you might be able to talk with them at greater length about the gospel but do not manipulate them into thinking walking forward will save them so it will stroke your own ego by visible signs of what you accomplished in the pulpit. Be Scriptural!

Filed under: Baptist, Ministry, Preaching, The Church

Baptism and SBC Church Membership

When someone desires to join themselves to a Southern Baptist church in membership there are several things that must be considered. After evaluation is taken of the salvation of the individual the question of baptism arises. Many who join themselves to a Southern Baptist church may be coming from a church that is apart of another denomination. Many denominations do not practice baptism in the same manner as Southern Baptists. Therefore, it is necessary to decide which baptism is recognized as a legitimate baptism by a Southern Baptist church.

On a personal note, this is an issue that has plagued me for many years. Growing up in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist church and seeing the practice of re-baptism for all who moved their membership from another denomination caused great confusion. When I began to study baptism and learn of the true biblical practice of this church ordinance I began to question the practice of re-baptism for all individuals moving their membership from another denomination.

According to Acts 8:36-39, Christian baptism should be practiced by immersion and is the testimony of a believer showing forth his faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Savior, and his union with Him in death to sin and resurrection to a new life. Baptism, according to Acts 2:41-42, is also a sign of fellowship and identification with the visible Body of Christ. Furthermore, the Baptist Faith and Message states, “Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” This statement has been the standard for Southern Baptists for many years and continues to stand as the rule of faith in Southern Baptist churches.

This is one reason why it is so necessary to investigate all potential church members and learn of their background and belief system. There are people from different denominations that desire membership in your church who believe in the biblical practice of baptism. They have been immersed as a sign and testament to their salvation experience, not believing baptism is essential for salvation but an outward sign of what has taken place in the heart in conversion. They have entered the waters believing they are identifying themselves with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ desiring to walk in newness of life. They have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Seeing that their doctrinal system is consistent with the church they are joining themselves with, these individuals, I currently feel, have no need for re-baptism in a Southern Baptist Church.

It is entirely another matter when an individual is coming into your church from a different religion such as Catholicism. When someone considers their baptism at infancy sufficient for their identity with the church there is a need for proper teaching on the subject and another baptism. Or perhaps when the individual has considered their baptism as essential for salvation, there is a need for a more biblical baptism. Instead of using the word “re-baptism” it is proper to use the term “first baptism” due to the lack of biblical understanding of what baptism really is. There are at least a hundred other examples and scenarios that could be given where another baptism would be valid in order to accept the prospective member into full fellowship with the church. It is probably rare that someone would come from another denomination that fully understands and agrees with the Southern Baptist position of baptism.

It is extremely necessary to gage the view of the church and the church leaders on this position. There must be good biblical teaching on the subject and a sound agreement on this issue. Baptism is not something to be placed on a list of less important doctrines. It is something Southern Baptists hold very dear and see as very biblical.

Filed under: Baptism, Baptist, Doctrine, Southern Baptist, The Church

Excellent Wednesday Links

Trevin Wax at Kingdom People has posted an excellent article on mentoring, O Brother, Where Art Thou? How Older Southern Baptists Can Mentor the Younger Generation

Owen Strachan announces a new Student Journal at Southern Seminary

Peter Beck explains how your prayer life can and should be God-Centered

John Piper shares a wonderful poem on Luke 18:25 written by his son Karsten.

Faith by Hearing shares 4 lectures delivered by Dr. Albert Mohler entitled, The New Atheism

Filed under: Albert Mohler, Baptist, John Piper, Poetry, Prayer, Southern Baptist, Southern Seminary

Abraham Booth – A Forgotten Baptist, part 5

In 1797, The Baptist Itinerant Society was established in London. This Society’s aim was to send “such Calvinistic ministers of the Baptist persuasion as appear to them properly qualified for itinerant preaching.” This aim was further explained in an address to the churches drawn up by Booth, “While we rejoice in the spiritual and laudable exertions of our Christian Brethren under different denominations to preach the gospel among the heathen in foreign climes, we should not forget the many myriads at home, who have scarcely anything pertaining to Christianity besides the name – who are profoundly ignorant, if not notoriously profligate and profane.”

In August 1804, Booth and two of his deacons, Joseph Gutteridge and William Taylor, were instrumental in the establishment of the London Baptist Educational Society. The purpose of the Society was to promote the training of ministerial candidates by supporting them for two years under the supervision of an experienced pastor. A few years after Booth’s death, the Society promoted the establishment of the Stepney Academy, now Regent’s Park College, Oxford.

During the last years of the eighteenth century, Abraham Booth and Andrew Fuller were outstanding Particular Baptist theologians. Both men were self-taught and had reached their doctrinal convictions and theological stands after much inward spiritual struggle. Booth came to his convictions from Arminianism, whereas Fuller had come to his from Hyper-Calvinism. Booth was a student of the writings of John Owen, while Fuller owed a great debt to Jonathan Edwards. Fuller and Booth seldom met; differences, and even misunderstandings, existed between these two men.

Abraham Booth enjoyed good health for much of his life. He was well built and seldom was he ill in such a way that he could not attend to his pastoral responsibilities. In his last years of his life he was increasingly subject to attacks of asthma during the winter months. His wife preceded his own death by four years. The loss had a great impact on Booth, however, his friends noted his calm resignation. There was reason for this, as Booth explained:

About three-and-twenty years ago my wife had a severe lying-in which so weakened her that we feared that she would never recover her strength. Her indisposition continued about two years, which was the occasion of our removing so near the meeting house. Shortly after the Lord was pleased to permit the family to be visited with the scarlet fever. My wife, and all except myself, were attacked with it. Her faculties were deranged, and the doctor said, ‘I fear, Sir, your wife will never recover.’ I attended all of them as well as I could. The Bible was then sweeter to me than ever it had been, even when I could only snatch from it a few verses at a time; and I well remember one solemn transaction. One evening I retired for the purpose of private prayer, and besought the Lord that I might find an entire resignation to his will. When I arose from my knees, I felt peculiar satisfaction in the perfection of God; and had such full persuasion of his righteousness, his justice, his mercy, and his love, that I lifted up my eyes to heaven, and said, ‘O God, I give my wife, my children, my all to thee’; and if ever I prayed in my life, I prayed at that time. Seeing then, that he has given her to me for three-and-twenty years in answer to my prayer, dare I now to murmur? God forbid. All recovered but the nurse; she went away, had the fever, and died.

 Booth was taken ill suddenly in September 1805. From then most of the services in Prescot Street were taken by his assistant, William Gray. Booth administered the Lord’s Supper for the last time in January 1806, just a few days before his death on the 27th of that month. In the Church Book, the devoted and grieving members of the church paid their tribute to their beloved pastor of almost thirty-seven years:

He possessed a noble disinterestedness of spirit; he sought not ours but us; he was truly the servant of this church, for Jesus’ sake. A pastor in the language of Jeremiah, according to God’s heart; who fed his people with knowledge and understanding. There are, perhaps, but few instances in the church of Christ, of one who was better exemplified the character of a Christian bishop, as drawn by the apostle Paul, Titus 1:7-9.

He was buried in the burial ground of the Maze Pond Chapel in Southward. John Rippon of Carter Lane was the preacher during his funeral services. James Dore of Maze Pond preached at a memorial service held later at Prescot Street Church. The death of Abraham Booth took from the Particular Baptists one of their outstanding theologians and from the London churches one of their leading figures. Humble and unassuming, he stood steadfast in the classical Calvinistic theology the Particular Baptists had inherited from their Puritan forebears. A man of spiritual wisdom, his counsel was regularly sought and freely given, and although he disliked titles, he was well known before his death as “the venerable Mr. Booth.”

Filed under: Abraham Booth, Baptist