Guest Blogger « Pastor and People

Friday, May 30, 2008 • 6:52 am 1

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

Thursday, May 29, 2008 • 6:39 am 1

Book Review: The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes

Book Review: The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes

Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the second person of the Trinity, is presented in Scripture as an inescapably fearful figure. The vision of Him that John records at the beginning of Revelation left John on his face as though dead, and considering Christ as the great Judge who will destroy His enemies at the last day has caused many more men to be utterly abased and driven to despair. But, strangely, gloriously, Jesus is also the Comforter, the Wonderful Counselor and Good Shepherd who is wondrously tender with His sheep. It is this tender, comforting side of Christ’s nature that Richard Sibbes is primarily concerned with meditating on in The Bruised Reed, and it is indeed a wonderful meditation.

Sibbes’ text is from Isaiah 42:

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

From this passage, and especially verse three, Sibbes elaborates beautifully on the person and offices of Christ as the Servant of God who treats His people with the utmost care as He sustains and purifies them, bringing forth “judgment unto truth.” The bruised reed, Sibbes says, represents a man who is in misery because of his sin and is despondent but for the hope he has in Christ. Christ will handle this person, bruised by his sin, gently, until through the misery he is purged of sin. Likewise, the smoking flax stands for a Christian in whom, though the flame of the Holy Spirit is kindled, it is weak, and the fumes of sin’s effects make him miserable. In the same way, Christ will not quench this believer, but will fan into flame the spark that he possesses until it grows and burns away all sinful impurities and he becomes a bright light shining forth the glory of God. As Jesus is so gently shepherding us, he is bringing forth the judgment of His gracious kingdom in us and through us, and one he will have brought it forth to victory and His kingdom will be consummated.

Everyone who struggles with sin-and that means every true believer-should find this book tremendously encouraging and comforting. There are times when each of us is in misery because of his own sin and its cancerous effects in our lives. In these times, we need more than anything else what Sibbes provides: a meditation on Christ and His work in our lives. Focusing on Christ, not on ourselves, is key to finding comfort and assurance when we feel particularly “bruised.”

Perhaps the only criticism that may justly be offered against The Bruised Reed is that it is not as narrowly exegetical as he seems to be at first blush, or as one would normally expect from a sermon. Sibbes lays out a wealth of comfort, encouragement, inspiration, and truth in these pages, but it is not always clear that it all comes from the Isaiah text. A great deal of the significance Sibbes finds in the images in this passage seem to be related to the meaning of the text primarily in an allegorical way, rather than literally or typologically. For example, his image of sparks (from the flax) by nature flying upwards as a symbol of the “Spirit of grace carry[ing] the soul heaven-ward and sett[ing] before us holy and heavenly aims,” does not seem to be the originally intended meaning of the passage. Additionally, some of the other passages he cites throughout the text don’t seem to closely support the point he intends them to make. For example, he uses 1 Corinthians 3:17, making a point about a Christian being “a sacred thing,” when the context of the passage clearly indicates that it refers to the corporate body of the church, not to individual Christians.

For all this inexact application and occasional stretching the meaning of the text (and it is really a minor problem), the book is still packed chock-full of wonderful nuggets of truth that I will be meditating on for some time to come. One of the more helpful is a point that he makes throughout the book, speaking to the man who is so painfully aware of his sin that it makes him miserable, and causes him to question whether there really is any true faith and repentance in him. He says,

Fire, where it is present, is in some degree active. So the least measure of grace works, as springing from the Spirit of God, who, from his operations, is compared to fire. Even in sins, when there seems nothing active but corruption, there is a contrary principle, which breaks the force of sin, so that it is not boundlessly sinful, as in those that are carnal.

Even when sin is so hideously present that it seems to obscure all else-when the fire cannot be seen because of all the smoke-still we can find comfort in that the awareness of sin and conviction is itself an evidence of grace. Were there no Spirit within us-no fire-we would feel no conviction and misery-no smoke. So then, in some ways misery because of sin is something for which to thank God, because in it we know that He has given us new life and is busy refining us into the image of Christ, painful though the process may be.

____________________

Filed under: Book Recommendations, Book Review, Books, Guest Blogger, Jesus, Puritans, Richard Sibbes

Wednesday, May 28, 2008 • 6:22 am 0

The Reformation of the Church, pt. 2

The Reformation of the Church, pt. 2 by Jeff Cavanaugh

The Reformation also resulted in a more biblical understanding of the pastor and his role in the church. In the Roman Catholic Church, the priest was believed to have important supernatural or magical powers, and he was a crucial part of mediating the grace of God to laymen. In the Eucharist, it was held, the priest re-sacrificed Christ by transubstantiating the elements of bread and wine into Christ’s actual body and blood. The priest was also supposed to have the power to grant absolution after hearing confession and assigning penance.

In the Reformation, the role of the priest shifted from performing the Eucharist to the preaching of God’s Word. Since Protestants no longer believed that the sacraments had salvific power, they understood that the priest couldn’t forgive sin or directly administer the grace of God the way Catholics believed he could. Rather, they understood that since salvation comes through faith alone and that faith comes by hearing the Word of God, the priest’s-now the pastor’s-most important duty was preaching the life-giving Word to the people.

This new focus on preaching meant that the standards for being a clergyman in a Reformed church were far different than those for being a priest in the Catholic Church. Though Rome may have had stricter official requirements, many Catholic priests were scarcely literate, since the mere recitation of the liturgy required little education and virtually no knowledge of the Scriptures. In contrast, to be ordained as a minister of the Word of God required thorough knowledge of the Bible and true theology, and substantial training in preaching and exegesis. Pastors were also expected to be examples of personal holiness and devotion to God, which was a stark contrast from the extreme moral degradation of the medieval Catholic clergy.

Finally, the Reformation had important implications for Protestants’ understanding of the nature of the sacraments. Whereas Rome had seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation, communion, confession, marriage, holy orders, and last rites), the Reformers rejected all but baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as these were the only ones instituted by Jesus in the New Testament. Though faithful administration of these were considered to be a mark of a true church, they were no longer considered essential for salvation. God’s grace in Christ’s atonement, they understood, was applied to the believer solely through faith, not by performance of any works.

The Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper differed from the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist primarily in their rejection of transubstantiation, though Protestant views varied. Luther continued to believe in the real physical presence of Christ’s body in the elements of the supper, though he understood this to be brought about by the faith of the communicant and not by the magical powers of a priest. Calvin and Zwingli denied Christ’s physical presence in the supper, understanding that Jesus’ physical body was at the right hand of God the Father in Heaven and instead teaching that Christ was spiritually present in the Supper and that the believing communicant fed on Christ in his heart.

The Reformers also rejected Rome’s belief that baptism regenerated the individual (usually an infant) to whom it was given. Though the Anabaptists in the Radical Reformation adopted believers’ baptism immediately, they were marginalized and persecuted throughout most of Protestant Europe. The Magisterial Reformers retained belief in infant baptism and articulated a new doctrine of covenant theology that understood baptism to be the sign of covenant membership and parallel to circumcision in the Old Testament. In the seventeenth century some Reformed Protestants began to embrace believers’ baptism, and Baptists eventually became one of the three major Reformed factions in England, with the Presbyterians and episcopalian Anglicans.

These three areas-the church, the role of pastors, and the sacraments-were perhaps the most notable of the doctrinal changes of the Reformation. They were tremendously important for the way the new Protestant churches developed and how they came to understand the Christian faith. They are perfect examples of the significance of the Reformers’ recovery of the gospel of justification by faith alone, and they are a wonderful picture of how Christ works to reform and perfect His Church.

____________________

Filed under: Church History, Doctrine, Guest Blogger, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Reformation, Reformed

Tuesday, May 27, 2008 • 6:20 am 2

The Reformation of the Church, pt. 1

The Reformation of the Church, pt. 1 by Jeff Cavanaugh

The Protestant Reformation was a world-shaking event. It changed the structure of society wherever its doctrines took root, and the recovery of the Gospel which was its central focus brought millions of people out of spiritual darkness and into the light of Christ. The doctrine of justification by faith alone, which Luther called “the article by which the Church stands or falls”, was at the center of the radically different Protestant understanding of what it meant to be a Christian. Three important areas of thought were particularly affected by sola fide: the understanding of the church, the pastor and his role, and the sacraments.

First, the Reformation turned upside down the doctrine of the church. In medieval Roman Catholicism (and in the Roman church to this day), the church was understood to be the visible structure of priests, bishops, cardinals, monks, nuns, and other ordained officials who all owed allegiance to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ. The Nicean attributes of the church-one, holy, catholic, and apostolic-were abused by Catholic theologians foundational to the claim that Rome’s visible structure was the only true church and that salvation could only be found in obedience to Rome and her dispensation of the sacraments.

The Reformation changed all this. The Reformers came to understand that ultimately, the bride of Christ is made up not of bishops and cardinals, but of those who truly repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ. Their understanding that the Roman church was corrupt and fundamentally apostate from the Gospel was revolutionary, for it showed them that a true church was distinguished by faithfulness to the Gospel, not allegiance to the Pope.

The Reformation also began to change how the church understood its relation to the world. The Roman Catholic Church had proclaimed its sovereignty over all merely human governments, and for much of the Middle Ages it did indeed control the political life of much of Europe. After the reformation, however, the Augustinian understanding of the distinction between spiritual, heavenly power and earthly power came to be understood once more. In England and elsewhere, the situation was in fact reversed and the secular monarch was considered to be the head of the national church as well. It would be some time later that congregationalism would lead to the disestablishment of religion and the modern understanding of a separate church and state.

____________________

Filed under: Church History, Doctrine, Guest Blogger, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Reformation, Reformed, The Church