Polity Matters (Part 2): If You Don't Like Congregational Meetings . . .

. . . then don't bother listening to Mark Dever's views on congregational rule.

Before you write me off, though, forget everything you've ever experienced in congregational meetings. What I'm talking about is much more than a compulsory reading of the minutes, your hum-drum financial report, and a couple rubber-stamp proposals referred to the congregation by the deacon board. Far from it. I'm talking about 2-3 hour meetings in which the pastors and the congregation talk openly about a vision for the upcoming year's ministry and how the budget needs to be designed to reflect those ministry priorities. I'm talking about grasping the concept that the budget reflects the spiritual objectives of the church. And then I'm talking about another 2-3 hour congregational meeting a month or so later to reconsider the budget that's been fleshed out since the last meeting, finally culminating in its ratification.

But then, they're used to it, since Dever typically preaches for 60-70 minutes. And then virtually no one leaves the building for a half hour after the service because they want to fellowship with each other. And they do have a Sunday evening service and a Wednesday evening service.

So if genuinely engaging the congregation in the church's decision-making process sounds aberrant or frightening, CHBC is real world evidence that it can be effective. (It's biblical, too, but then we always like pragmatic arguments.) It's what congregational rule used to be like before our congregations decided they liked the comfortable disengagement of deacon rule through representative democracy. Personally, I like the idea of church members demanding of one another a higher level of involvement and responsibility for the ministry direction of the church. More to come.

Polity Matters

I've read, heard, or participated in more discussions about church polity in the past two years of my life than I had in the previous 29.25. Whether that is a reflection of a trend that spans conservative evangelicalism or simply my own experience, I do not know. Regardless, I am convinced that Baptist churches that intend to model their ministry after the pattern of Scripture must re-examine and reform the extra-biblical (at best) model of polity that has become the norm.

Luke Akins at Eden Baptist Church in Savage, MN, has been a great friend for a long time. We were roommates during staff training at Northland Camp almost 10 years ago--the week that God saved me. A couple weeks later I sent him home for most of the summer by breaking his arm while arm-wrestling. (Had to sneak that tidbit in there.) Luke recently wrote an article for his church newsletter about what Scripture teaches about the role of deacons. He writes,

God has purposely designed the church to include two offices, each with distinct roles. The elders seek to provide guidance and spiritual nurture for the benefit of the assembly, while the deacons seek to serve the body by freeing the elders to function most effectively through prayer and the ministry of the Word.

The model of polity Akins describes is certainly not new or unique since it seems to be the model used by the NT church. What is unusual about it is its rarity among 21st century Baptist churches. In many of these churches, the deacons are the primary decision-making body and often possess direct authority over the pastor. I believe we are seeing the leading edge of a movement back to the biblical model. One of the primary driving forces in this movement is Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., and its daughter ministry, 9 Marks. This name is taken from Pastor Dever's book, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, which I recommend wholeheartedly. If you want a free 54-page preview of the 255-page book, you can get it here. His book, Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life, traces polity in Baptist history. To the particular issue Akins addresses about the blurring of the offices of elder and deacon, Dever has this to say:

Many modern churches have tended to confuse elders with either the church staff or the deacons. Deacons, too, fill a New Testament office, one rooted in Acts 6. While any absolute distinction between the two offices is difficult, the
concerns of the deacons are the practical details of church life: administration, maintenance, and the care of church members with physical needs. In many churches today, deacons have taken some spiritual role; but much has simply been left to the pastor. It would be to the benefit of the church to again distinguish the role of elder from that of deacon.

Some might react negatively to the concept of multiple elders, assuming that it is a manifestation of Presbyterian elder rule or John MacArthur's version of it. Not true. Dever is quite clear that the congregation is the final decision-making body of the church. His Leadership Interview with MacArthur clarifies this distinction when Dever asks MacArthur if there is any scenario in which the congregation could overrule the elders at Grace Community Church. His answer is essentially no, except in the event that an elder nominated by the elders is known by a member of the congregation to be unqualified. This answer draws a clear line between Dever's congregational rule and MacArthur's elder rule.

Since that last link refers to a Leadership Interview, let me provide a link to the LI main page, from which dozens of fascinating interviews are available, including several on polity, one of which was conducted just a few days ago. You can listen online or, for you iPod owners, download the MP3s.

A Lutheran Apologist

Pastor Paul T. McCain's blog, Cyberbrethren, is new to me, but it seems to communicate a spirit that is very close to others I've recommended. McCain is a pastor in the Missouri Synod Lutheran denomination, which I understand to be the fundamentalist wing of modern-day Lutheranism. I've read numerous accounts describing the Missouri Synod's rigid practice of ecclesiastical separation, which is not at all unlike the most conservative groups within modern evangelicalism. McCain's sidebar explaining his heritage provides some worthwhile background.

I haven't read thoroughly all that Pastor McCain has to say about the events of this past week, but you may well find his perspective valuable, since he is a confessing evangelical who intends to carry on the tradition of Martin Luther.

Thanks once again to roving reporter Angus for the link.

"I didn’t agree with everything [John Paul II] said."

So who is this one who joins the few courageous souls willing to admit disagreements with the Pope? Probably not the first person you would think of.

BONO paid tribute to POPE JOHN PAUL II during U2’s show in ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA last night (April 2). . . . “I met the Holy Father and I was so taken by this showman, even if I didn’t agree with everything he said,” the singer, whose father was Roman Catholic, said to the crowd as the band began playing the intro to new song ‘Miracle Drug’.

[link to nme.com article available but omitted due to potentially offensive content]

The U2 lead singer also called the late pontiff "the best front man the Roman Catholic Church has ever had."

And from MTV comes a reminder of another rocker's anti-papal protest (don't ask me how I find this stuff):

Of course, the most controversial pop-culture moment involving the pope occurred in 1992, when singer Sinead O'Connor ripped up a picture of John Paul II and said, "Fight the real enemy," after her performance of Bob Marley's "War" (in which she changed the lyric "social injustice" to "sexual abuse") on "Saturday Night Live."

O'Connor eventually apologized to the pope, calling her act "ridiculous." She went on to join the congregation of the controversial Irish Bishop Michael Cox, who eventually ordained the singer as a priest, a move the pope was quoted as calling "bizarre." NBC, which received thousands of complaints (including one from Frank Sinatra, who said he wanted to "punch" O'Connor), was eventually fined $2.5 million by the Federal Communications Commission. The performance was not aired again.

I don't know which is more amazing to me:

1. The fact that so many evangelicals seem more in love with the late pontiff than rockers from RCC backgrounds, or

2. The fact that CBS was only fined $550,000 for last year's Super Bowl incident when NBC was fined $2.5 million for Sinead's shenanigans

I feel as though this horse has been beaten to death. Barring a major development, I'll dig up something else to talk about tomorrow and in days to follow. So to choose a final word from the wisdom of Dan Rather: "Courage."

Protestants: Embrace the Love

Another reason we need the God Focused Youth Ministry Training Conference.

Silence Might Have Been Golden

Sharper Iron posted this morning a follow-up to yesterday's "Blogosphere Challenge on the Pope." The first portion is the first part of Bob Bixby's Sunday sermon intro linked here.

The second portion is the perspective of a close friend and co-worker of mine, Jason Wredberg. Over the past couple days I had the opportunity to see his working drafts. At some point in the process a very speculative thought occurred to me. I would not in any way proclaim to know the motivations of the evangelicals who appear on prime time talk shows to talk about the issues of the day or who write press releases concerning the death of the Pope. Maybe their moms all drilled into them the proverb, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Personally, I wish they would have followed the latter clause. But that's just me. (Ok, to be proper, "That's just I," for all you fellow editors out there.)

Back to my thought. Jason refers to John MacArthur and Bob Jones III. What might their ministries have in common that is essentially different from the commonalities of the ministries of Lucado, Warren, Dobson, and the Grahams? MacArthur and Jones have clearly and consistently repudiated any subtle hints of religious pluralism. Why would these others be reticent to do so? Is the motivation nothing more than a kindler, gentler spirit? What might they be concerned about that would cause them to measure their words to their consituencies?

Worthless speculation? Perhaps. But remember, silence was an option. These men were not obligated to speak out on the exclusivity of the gospel, the theology of the Catholic Church, or the eternal destiny of the Pope. They chose to do so (to varying degrees), and I believe their comments have been weighed on the balances and found lacking.

Update: Some Evangelicals Still Affirm the Reformation! (updated Wednesday)

As I hear of more genuine evangelicals offering biblical perspectives on the death of John Paul II, I'll post them to this entry. I just saw one this morning written by Rick Holland. [sarcasm] I doubt if anyone has heard of him. [/sarcasm]

RixMix

11:45 a.m.
Adam Bailie has tracked down some more quotes, and Nate Busenitz offers some historical context in the comments.

3:30 p.m.
Crosswalk interview with Mark Bailey, President of Dallas Theological Seminary.

4:20 p.m.
James White's incisive comments. Thanks to Angus for putting me on the trail.

04/06/2005
8:00 a.m.
Bob Bixby offers what I believe is the most thorough biblical and historical analysis yet.

******************************
And on the disappointing side: Tuesday night's Hannity and Colmes on FoxNews led off with an interview of Franklin Graham on a variety of issues. Sean Hannity, a Catholic, asked Graham a very open question about the differences between Roman Catholic and evangelical faith. Graham acknowledged but minimized theological differences, focusing instead on alleged agreement on "the cross." He suggested that that Roman Catholics and evangelicals agree that Christ died for the world and that He rose again.

Surely Graham is aware that evangelicals believe that the work of the cross is finished (tetelestai), not continuing in the Mass, as Catholics believe. And it was accomplished by Christ alone, not in cooperation with Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Graham's gloss of these essential theological distinctions is appalling. Although I appreciate the fact that at least four times in his 10-minute interview he explained the gospel and even quoted John 14:6, I have to wonder whether it is the gospel or another gospel. Graham has made statements in the past that his father would not have made concerning the exclusivity of Christ. I wish I could have pointed to this week as another example.

At this posting I was unable to find a transcript of the interview. I'll keep "efforting" it.

WWLD (What Would Luther Do?)

Did I miss something? When did the evangelical Protestant love-fest with the Roman Catholic Church begin? I am not a church history guy, but I was under the impression that Savonarola, Hus, and Latimer died for their faith--the faith taught by Scripture, that is--at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.

When I wrote Friday's blog about Reagan, Thatcher, and the Pope, I expected the praise that would be laid at John Paul II's feet. Some of it is well-deserved. By many accounts, he was a man of tremendous character and leadership. His biography is amazing. One reporter told how he visited the prison cell of his would-be assassin to forgive him. Attributed to several Baptists, including Paige Patterson and Richard Land, is a statement that John Paul II was a Pope "who really knew how to Pope." That seems fair to me.

But what I never anticipated was the herd of evangelicals trampling over one another in a rush to elevate him to Protestantism's version of sainthood. It's true that most of them carefully avoid endorsing his theology. Dobson's statement is a good example. On the other hand, Billy Graham went so far as to pontificate on the late Pope's eternal standing with God. From the Larry King Live transcript:

KING: There is no question in your mind that he is with God now?

GRAHAM: Oh, no. There may be a question about my own, but I don't think Cardinal Wojtyla, or the Pope -- I think he's with the Lord, because he believed. He believed in the cross. That was his focus throughout his ministry, the cross, no matter if you were talking to him from personal issue or an ethical problem, he felt that there was the answer to all of our problems, the cross and the resurrection. And he was a strong believer.

I'm not asking Graham to condemn him. Just have some allegiance to the Gospel of salvation by faith alone that you claim to believe, that was paid for by the blood of Christ, and that was defended by the blood of the martyrs. Please, hold your tongue and let our sovereign God apply His grace, mercy, and justice as He will.

I have encountered one evangelical so far who has spoken with balance and clarity. The statement below is from Al Mohler's blog today. The whole post is worth a read.

Even so, we must also recognize that John Paul II also represented the most troubling aspects of Roman Catholicism. He defended and continued the theological directions set loose at the Second Vatican Council. Even as he consolidated authority in the Vatican and disciplined wayward priests and theologians, he never confronted the most pressing issues of evangelical concern.

Even in his most recent book, released in the United States just days before his death, John Paul II continued to define the work of Christ as that which is added to human effort. Like the church he served, John Paul II rejected justification by faith. Beyond this, he rejected the biblical doctrine of hell, embraced inclusivism, and promoted an extreme form of Marian devotion, referring to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," and "Mother of all Graces."

Thanks to Dr. Mohler. If one must speak, this is the way to do it. Perhaps I and others without Dr. Mohler's skill and wisdom would be better fit to keep silent and merely be thought to be fools.

Hypocrisy and Inconsistency: How to Be Wrong All the Time

World Magazine is a must-read for me because it consistently reveals the hypocrisy of the religious elite, the academic establishment, and the media. The most recent issue (4/2) documents two glaring examples.

The first is the story of William and Kay McClanahan. During these past few weeks we've learned all about the legal rights of the adulterous husband Michael Schiavo. Now, Mrs. McClanahan is facing a cadre of doctors who want to withhold medical treatment from her husband despite clear evidence of the potential for rehabilitation. So much for spousal rights.

The second is an expose of the shenanigans at the University of Colorado concerning Ward Churchill, the radical professor who called the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns." Meanwhile, Phil Mitchell, an award-willing professor at U of C, is being dismissed for the unpardonable sin of quoting Thomas Sowell and other black critics of affirmative action.

Get used to it. "Free speech" now means freely choosing to speak only what the secular leftists endorse. Apparently it wasn't enough for them to be wrong most of the time. Now they are willing to embrace irrational inconsistency in order to be wrong all the time.

Spiritual Influence: A Force for Liberty or Slavery

No doubt genuine evangelicals will have much to say this Sunday about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. And they'll be right to remind us of those foundational truths of the Reformation in light of the global praise that will be lauded on John Paul II.

I don't intend to back up my verbal dump truck and unload my theological pronouncements in an attempt to hide that pile of praise. Rather, it seems appropriate to ponder how the Pope used his position of influence to pave the way for the Presidents Bush to preside over the unleashing of human liberty one nation at a time. It occurred to me today that three people--Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II--came to prominent positions on the world stage at about the same time and left it forever changed.

It turns out that George Weigel of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and John Fund of The Wall Street Jounal thought these thoughts first.

Weigel best summarizes the moral of this story:

Several lessons can be drawn from this analysis. First, the experience of John Paul II suggests that “civil society” is not simply institutional: a free press, free trade unions, free business organizations, free associations, etc. “Civil society” has an essential moral core.

Secondly, John Paul’s strategy reminds us that “power” cannot be measured solely in terms of aggregates of military or economic capability. The “power of the powerless” is a real form of power.

In the third place, the Pope’s impact demonstrates that non-state actors count in contemporary world politics, and sometimes in decisive ways. John Paul II did not shape the history of our times as the sovereign of the Vatican City micro-state, but as the Bishop of Rome and the universal pastor of the Catholic Church.

In other words, power over people's souls wields immeasurable influence. Absolute power over people's souls . . . well, I'll leave that thought unfinished. Suffice it to say that the the last book of the New Testament further buttresses this point. May we beware the misnomer that only the Roman Catholic Church wields such power. Spiritual influence cuts both ways.