sbc IMPACT!

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 5:37 am

Hey Geoff,

I have a better membership resolution. Let’s do away with membership altogether.

Here are my reasons:
1. “church” membership has little or nothing to do with being a member of Christ’s Church.
2. “church” membership is merely for the sake of voting rights.
3. “church” membership usually adds responsibilities that Christ never adds (i.e. taking a 2.5 hour course).
4. “church” membership never determines true membership in Christ’s church. Meaning, you can be a giving, supporting, going member of Crossroads, but that doesn’t mean you’re a follower of Christ - and you can be a follower of Christ but that doesn’t mean you’re a giving, supporting, going member of Crossroads.
5. “regenerate church membership” is a circular term. If you are a church member (Christ’s Church) then you are regenerate.
6. There is no “church membership” (other than Christ’s Church) found in the pages of the Bible.
7. “church” membership is way too much work for little to no reward. Surely there is a better way to spend our time, than annual membership check-ups and 2.5 hour membership classes.

I know, a resolution with my ideas would never meet the floor. It’s ashame too, because I still haven’t found any biblical evidence for holding membership roles. I use to think that the SBC was serious about their position on the Bible.

God’s Glory,
Lew

The Pursuit Online Store

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 7:34 am

Geoff,

That’s fine, I don’t think it’s a sin to have local church membership roles. If you like it, great, I (obviously) happen to fall into a category of people who think we should do everything we can to simplify Christian living, rather than complicate it.

Regarding your reactions to my points, let me react a little :) -

1. Yes, I believe there is only a Universal Church - I also agree that the we meet in local groups. By no means am I going to deny that people meet locally. That, as you have pointed out, is ludicrous. But I still don’t see anywhere in Scripture about Membership roles, by-laws, and local covenants.

2. ???

3. HEH, good justification.

4. Well, I don’t think we can “ever really know?” And sure has heck, a name on a role doesn’t help us out (i.e. we wouldn’t be discussing this issue). I do believe that part of the answer is easy, those who are faithful, serving, and giving are good candidates. But if we already recognize those people, why do they need to have a name on a piece of paper other than the Lamb’s Book?

5. Perhaps I’m confused. I don’t ever recall saying that people didn’t meet locally.

6. Perhaps the methods have changed… perhaps we should follow the Bible’s methods rather than our own made up versions… by the way, I think you’ve misused the word worship.

7. I agree and then disagree. I agree, that all things church are not about “me” or “you”. In fact, I’ll clarify that my point was that maintaining a list of members is more about “me” or “you” than it is about the people. The list has already been completely, I’d rather be spending my time discipling than spending my time teaching people about the rules and regulations I’ve setup for a specific group of people.

Yes, we definitely hold some different views about church membership… and maybe a little about what the local church is and how it should function. But we are brothers and I’ll be poking my head in from time to time.

God’s Glory,
Lew

By Bart Barber on May 14, 2008 at 8:39 am

Geoff and Lew,

Might I add a thought or two?

Two facts of the New Testament logically require some concept of local church membership (whether you wish to make it, Lew, a “role” that someone fills or a “roll” upon which someone’s name is inscribed, is entirely up to you):

1. The ministry of an elder in a local church involves giving “account” to God for the “keeping watch” over a definite set of “souls.” (Hebrews 13:17) How, apart from trying to keep up with which Christians are and which are not my pastoral responsibility, do you propose that I fulfill this obligation, Lew?

2. The existence of church discipline requires that the church be able to keep up with who is NOT a member of the local congregation (i.e., who has been excluded). Indeed, one of the central texts teaching church discipline starkly and pointedly adjures us to take action within a local church explicitly based upon a specific knowledge as to who is and who is not in the church: “For what have I to do with outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13) Thus, the membership of the local church is the set of people whom it is this local church’s responsibility to “judge” through church discipline when necessary.

Local church membership is indeed a biblical concept.

Also, Geoff, might I say something about the utility of resolutions. Indeed, they are different from motions, but that does not mean that they are meaningless. Action springs forth from belief. Resolutions touch upon belief, not action. Surely you are not suggesting that belief is meaningless?

Indeed, you take note of the fact that we have not passed a resolution on this topic for the past two years. That meant something to you. If we cannot come to some unified statement about Regenerate Church Membership, then I think that fact will loom large when we describe the history of Southern Baptists from this point forward. But I’m optimistic that we’ll see a resolution adopted this year.

Finally, allow me to proffer my opinion that you have buried the lead in your discussion of why our membership rolls do not reflect any realistic appraisal of the actual band of regenerate members of our churches.

Pridefulness in reporting, IMHO, is such a small factor as to be negligible. Preachers who want to inflate numbers for bragging rights don’t inflate the membership number; they inflate the ATTENDANCE number. Who brags about membership? Who even keeps up with it? The number has become too meaningless for many people to cite it as evidence of success.

Indeed, the person I’ve heard “bragging” about membership numbers more than anyone else is Mark Dever, touting how their deliberate culling of membership numbers has led to higher attendance and is reflective of the practice of RCM (this statement is not a criticism). Ironically, it will be the recovery of regenerate church membership that will make us MORE likely to brag about our membership numbers once they become meaningful again. That’s a risk I’m willing to take.

The motivating factor that prevents us from practicing regenerate church membership is fear—fear of the relatives and friends of those who would be removed from the rolls, fear of the dredging up of past congregational scandals and failures that will come when we start to ask our absentees why they won’t come to church, and fear of the bad press that people will spread around when they tell of how they were kicked out of their church.

That’s my opinion and experience, anyway.

By David Rogers on May 14, 2008 at 9:22 am

Perhaps the following may shed a little light on this discussion (or muddy the waters even further, depending on your perspective)…

From the point of view of the ecclesiastical model I proposed in my post a few days ago (http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/05/07/the-one-true-church/), the whole issue of “church membership” per se has to do with church at what I call the “house church” level. Church at this level functions as essentially a spiritual family, with the same intimate relationships and mutual commitment. In keeping with this understanding, there was no need for “official membership rolls” per se. It would be like having a membership roll for your immediate family. You just automatically knew who was who. And when a family member fell into sin, pretty much everyone knew about that too, unless they were really good at covering up.

Now, in our congregations of today, in many cases, we have lost this intimate relationship-based family dynamic. That is a shame. In some congregations, not only have we lost the family dynamic, but we have also lost the mutual accountability that goes along with it (e.g. church discipline, regenerate church membership, etc.).

The move towards encouraging congregations to practice church discipline, and safeguard regenerate church membership, is, in my opinion, a move in the right direction. However, without the intimate relationship-based family dynamic in which this was originally practiced, in a lot of ways you are going to be fighting an uphill battle.

In order to carry out what I am proposing (at least as I understand it now), it is not absolutely necessary to break up all the existing congregations into autonomous house churches. The same intimate relationship-based family care dynamics can be facilitated through a good cell-group system. I would venture to say that even some “deacon care” systems are, if nothing else, a step in the right direction here also.

Perhaps, taken from this perspective, both Lew and Geoff are right. What we need, though, is not so much more rules and regulations as much as it is better and more intimate relationships with one another.

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 9:27 am

Bart,

Thank you for an excellent rendering of reality.

cb

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 9:33 am

David,

Are you familiar with The Plymouth Brethern?

cb

By Bart Barber on May 14, 2008 at 10:07 am

David,

Contrarian views are often useful for the refinement of our ideas. Perhaps my critique of your suggestion would prove helpful at least partially for your thoughts.

First, I think there is a difference between the way that one knows who is a member of one’s immediate family and the way that one knows who is a member of one’s church family. In your immediate family (if I know your biography well enough), you know who is a member quite simply by identifying those who were born there. My situation is a little different. My children became a part of my family through a legal action by which they were added to the legal list of those who are members of my household. Granted, the emotional reality is not nearly so cold as that, but the actuarial accounting of their adoption was nevertheless absolutely necessary.

If churches will have members who were not born in that church (i.e., if people will ever move from one church to another), then some formality of “adopting” a member “born” elsewhere into this “family” seems unavoidable to me.

Second, can’t we conclude that 1 Corinthians was addressed, as it states, “to the church of God which is at Corinth”? How is this to be construed as just one cell group within the city? And if it is not—if this is your “city church” that is receiving this letter—then it would appear that the business of church discipline pertains to the “city church.” After all, wouldn’t it take a great deal of inference to conclude that “the majority” of 2 Corinthians 2:6 was not actually the majority of the “city church” but was instead only the majority of a subunit? Certainly I see no reason in the text to make that leap.

I don’t consent to the whole “city church” conceit, but if I did, I think I would be pressed by the text to conclude that church discipline pertained to the “city church.” In which case that group is going to have to take note of who is and who is not a member of the “city church” for the reasons that I articulated above. Or does a member excluded from one “house church” just waltz over to the next “house church” and take up membership there? I think that’s not what happened in Corinth.

By Kevin Peacock on May 14, 2008 at 10:50 am

Someone once asked a pastor of one of our more “traditional” Canadian churches, “Does your church have cell groups?” His response was, “Yes we do. We all meet at 9:30 on Sunday morning. One cell group meets in this classroom, one cell group in that classroom, etc.” It used to be that a main purpose of a well-funtioning Sunday School program was to segment the larger congregation down into smaller ministry groups. The teacher was taught to teach, minister, and evangelize, and well-functioning class/department would do all of the funtions of a NT church: evangelism, discipleship, worship, ministry, and fellowship. A church also used to be known by the size of its Sunday School/Bible study program, a documentable number. This was probably a more accurate read of how many committed, growing disciples a congregation has, rather than how many attended a worship service.

Our Scottish Baptist brethren keep their church rolls clean in this way. Instead of a voluntary cooperative contribution from each church like the CP, each Scottish Baptist Union church was expected to contribute a certain amount based upon their church membership! Dead wood wasn’t left around for long.

One more thought, David Garrison, in his book “Church Planting Movements” tells of a prominent American pastor who visited Nairobi, and was introduced to the Kenyan church leadership as “pastor of one of the largest churches in America, with more than 20,000 members. Each week more than 8,000 attend his preaching.” The Kenyan leader was visibly moved and led his brothers to pray for this dear shepherd who could not find more than half of his flock on Sunday morning! (p. 160).

Could it be that “church membership” is not as important to God as active participation in a local Body of Christ (1 Cor 12)? Could it be that many who are relying on their “church membership,” and the local church allows to remain as members even without their active participation, may one day hear from our Savior, “Depart from Me; I never knew you” (Matt 7:23)?

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 11:00 am

Bart,

Regarding your points:

1.
God: “Bart, your next door neighbor struggled with pornography and adultery for 10 years, but you never talked to him or tried to help him… you didn’t even know his first name!”

You: “But, God, his name wasn’t on the membership list!”

God: “Oh… my bad… nevermind.”

By the way, always in Scripture are the “local” churches called by their city names.

2. You said, “The existence of church discipline requires that the church be able to keep up with who is NOT a member of the local congregation (i.e., who has been excluded).” - I couldn’t disagree more. There is a man in my life who I consider to be my pastor, and he knows it. I can guarantee you that I am not on a list in his desk drawer.

I think we disagree over the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. Firstly, the main point is to remove the wicked man from their midst. This has nothing to do with membership. This man is apparently claiming to be a Christian, he’s hanging out with other Christians, and he is doing some bad stuff, so they have judge/discipline/etc. him. If I understand correctly, using your interpretation, you would have no right to remove him unless of course he was on your membership list. So, if I went to FBC Farmersville, never “join”, I could start cheating on my wife with one of your Sunday School teachers and you would have no authority to judge/discipline/etc. me.

Secondly, Outsiders does not equate to all those outside of First Baptist Church of Farmersville… it means everyone out side of Christ’s Body (or in simpler terms, those who are lost). Also “insiders” does not equate to only those who are on the list at First Baptist Church of Farmersville.

I’ll let David continue to fight the city church vs. local church vs. house church battle :). But just so you know, I pretty much agree with his conclusion.

God’s Glory,
Lew

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 11:25 am

Bart,

Again, thank you. This time for proper biblical exposition.

Lew,

Consider Ecclesiology 101 next fall.

David,

Plymouth Brethern?

cb

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 11:27 am

Lew,

Make that; Biblical/Baptist Ecclesiology 101 next fall.

That way you will not be wasting your time or your money.

After all, gas alone is $3.78 a gallon and rising. :-)

cb

By Tim Rogers on May 14, 2008 at 11:37 am

Brother Lew,

One statement and question from where I sit. This discussion is an interesting exercise, but it seems that you jump to the wrong book to speak about church discipline when you jump to 1 Corinthians. As I understand Scripture, 1 Corinthians 5 is based on Matthew 18. In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gives us the standard for implementing church discipline. It seems that would be hard to do in a universal church setting. However, local churches were not in existence at this time. Thus, it would be hard to implement church discipline in universal churches because we do not know who is, and who is not, on the universal church role.

Blessings,
Tim

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 11:44 am

Wow,

These Baptist Identity boys are battin’ 1000 today in their biblical exposition.

Whose up after Bart and Tim? Is Vol on deck? :-)

cb

By David Rogers on May 14, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Bart,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. They do indeed provide fuel for further reflection and searching of the Scripture.

Don’t take this as a “I know what I believe on this, and no one’s going to convince me otherwise” type of answer. I really don’t think I’ve necessarily got it all figured out quite yet.

But, on the basis of where I am at in my understanding now, here is how I would answer you…

1. Yes, I can see your point about “actuarial accounting” to some degree. As I understand it, an individual’s “spiritual birth certificate” if you will, in NT times, was their water baptism. At that time, as far as I can make out, the idea of an authentic but invalidly baptized believer was virtually unknown. Unfortunately, the tragic consequences of church history have changed that situation for us today. Also, the Bible references the use of “letters” from one “church” to another, validating the standing of a brother or sister in Christ who was travelling or changing places of residence. So, to some extent, the general concept of “actuarial accounting” does appear valid, though, it seems to me it was handled in a more relational, personal (and not so much administrative and formal) way than what often takes place today.

2. I do not believe the “church of God which as at Corinth” consisted of just one “cell group.” Though not seal-tight irrefutable, I think there is good reason to infer that “Chloe’s household” (1 Cor. 1:11), and the “household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16, 16:15) were separate “house church” meetings that considered themselves to be a part of the “church of God which as at Corinth.”

3. As to 2 Cor. 2:6, we must assume the word πλειονων refers to a democratic majority, which, I grant, is a possible, though not unanimous, rendering. Next, we must assume that the “majority” referred to is in the context of a duly-convoked assembly of all the believers together in Corinth. This may well be the case. You say you see no reason in the text to “make the leap” to suppose otherwise. I say maybe so, maybe not.

4. I have no way to know, or even surmise, to what degree the various “house churches” consulted with each other, and deferred to each other’s judgment in the exercise of church discipline. It does seem likely that the believers, and at the very least, the leaders, of the various “house churches” knew each other, and supported each other, and submitted to each other’s spiritual giftings (perhaps not unlike a really good Baptist Association nowadays). But, if individuals such as the disciplined believer of 1 Cor. 2:6 normally met in the context of a “house church” fellowship (which, I think, given the overall evidence, is quite likely), then, I don’t think it is a far stretch to infer that the immediate responsibility for the discipline issued was in the context of that same “house church” fellowship.

5. It is entirely possible there was a more officially “connectional” relationship between the various “house churches” in a given city in NT times. Some versions of church history indeed affirm this to be the case. I, for one, am not totally convinced. In any case, if it was not this way in the beginning, it is undeniable that it soon drifted towards this in the immediately subsequent years. However, if we buy into this thesis, it is hard to counter the Roman Catholic defense of their ecclesiology. If, for example the Roman Catholic Church of today is the one and same church of NT times, just gone corrupt, then, probably we should be more concerned with reforming the errant but (supposedly) authentic church than “restituting” a church that has not been in existence since NT times.

For me, though, there is another way out of this dilemma, and it is the one that I am proposing.

6. As to one member “waltzing” from one “house church” to another, I would think that, under the premise the various “house church” leaders knew each other, and respected each other’s ministries, that such “waltzing” would be effectively waylaid (similar, perhaps, to the way the “transfer of letter” system in today’s Baptist churches is supposed to work, when it is practiced conscientiously).

By Alan Knox on May 14, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Well, I wasn’t planning to get involved in this discussion, as interesting as it is. But, I decided to comment on Tim’s statement that “In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gives us the standard for implementing church discipline.”

I understand that this passages is usually grouped together with other passages concerning church discipline, but in this passage Jesus does not give directions to the church at all. In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus speaks to the one sinned against only, and all of the commands are directed toward the individual sinned against - not to the “one or two” nor to “the church”. Thus, in this passage, there is no direction from Jesus to the church. This passage is not about “church discipline” but about reconciliation of broken relationships.

Should this passage be taken into account before the church decides to take action against someone? Certainly. But that does not mean that the passage is about church discipline.

Instead, 1 Corinthians 5 contains the clearest teachings in Scripture that directs the church as a group to take action against another person who calls himself a believer.

-Alan

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Alan Knox,

Are you saying Matt. 18: 15-17 is not foundational to 1 Cor. 5?

Is it an independent directive from Jesus to individuals outside visible communities of faith.

If so was Jesus founding parachurch organizations prior to the church?

cb

By Tim Rogers on May 14, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Brother Alan Knox,

There is truth to what you are saying, however, the illocutionary force of the text demands that this text provide a basis for church discipline.

Blessings,
Tim

By Rob Ayers on May 14, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Geoff, you really know how to bring ‘em out.

Great discussion all! Keep it coming.

Rob

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 12:51 pm

CB,

Re: Baptist Ecclesiology - been there, done that… I found the Bible to more interesting.

Tim,

I merely used 1 Cor. as a response to Bart’s use of 1 Cor. - Regardless, I do not expect to know everyone in the universal church. But we surely know some… and those who we know we surely have some responsibility towards. That is, unless they’re not on the official list, right?

God’s Glory,
Lew

By Rob Ayers on May 14, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Lew,

Your assumption being that Baptist Ecclesiology is foreign to the Bible. Now there is an assumption worthy of exploration.

By the way, this is a discussion forum. Your last statement to CB is an example of an fallacious argumentation of Argumentum ad Populum. Profer you evidence (scriptural) that Baptist Ecclesiology is foreign to the Bible.

Rob

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Lew,

A question, if you will then, based upon your comment in #23:

Is or is not Baptist ecclesiology closer to biblical ecclesiology? In other words; Is Baptist ecclesiology biblical?

cb

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 1:11 pm

It is not fair for Tim and Rob to know ahead of time what the thread is going to be so they can look up real big words to use. :-)

cb

By Bart Barber on May 14, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Lew,

Let me ask you this question: If I were not a pastor, would I have no obligation toward my struggling next-door neighbor? Of course I would, and they would be no different if I were not a pastor than they are with my being a pastor.

If my next-door neighbor is not a member of my church, then I have no PASTORAL responsibility toward him. I do still, of course, have the evangelistic and eleemosynary responsibilities toward him that all Christians have toward others.

By Alan Knox on May 14, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Tim,

Illocutionary force is exactly the point of my comment #19. It does not seem that Jesus’ intention in Matthew 18:15-17 was to instruct the church about what to do with a “sinning brother”. Instead, his intention was to instruct the one sinned against to seek reconciliation and to forgive the “sinning brother”.

How did Peter understand Jesus’ intention: “How often should I forgive my brother?” (Matt 18:21) Then, Jesus’ answer (in parable form) reinforces the importance that those who are forgiven by God should also forgive others.

It seems the illocutionary force of this pericope confirms my conclusion: this passage is not about “church discipline” but about reconciliation between brothers (that is, fellow believers).

-Alan

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Rob,

Sometimes it is not strict disobedience, but also addition to Scripture. Here are some examples of both:

1. Senior Pastor
2. 1 Corinthians 14:26
3. Membership Lists
4. 1 Timothy 3 (incorrect application)
5. 1 Thessalonians 4:11
6. Acts 20:32-36
7. etc.

CB,

The two questions are not the same :).

1) “Is or is not Baptist ecclesiology closer to biblical ecclesiology?” - Closer than what? The Bible? No. Jupiter? Maybe.

2) “In other words; Is Baptist ecclesiology biblical?” Not if by biblical you mean exactly what the Bible describes. But that doesn’t mean I think it’s “sin”. That also doesn’t mean that someone whose ecclesiology is not Baptist is necessarily wrong either or less Biblical (perhaps just as biblical, but in different aspects).

God’s Glory,
Lew

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Bart,

“If my next-door neighbor is not a member of my church, then I have no PASTORAL responsibility toward him. I do still, of course, have the evangelistic and eleemosynary responsibilities toward him that all Christians have toward others.”

Where is that distinction described in the Bible again?

Thanks,
Lew

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Everyone,

For what it’s worth, this is one of the best conversations I’ve had on sbc IMPACT!. I have really enjoyed it.

God’s Glory,
Lew

By volfan007 on May 14, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Tim,

Who are you saying to electrocute? I think you misspelled it as illocutionary. But, that’s alrigt. Sometimes I misspell words, too. Dont feel bad. :)

CB, you made me look up the Plymouth Brethren and read about them. David Rogers, have you read about them? They sound a lot like what you’re saying. Really.

Lew, Baptists are people of the Book, the Bible. We try to base what we believe and practice solely on the Bible. And, it’s really insulting of you to say that we’re not, whenever we really think that we are! I guess we’ve been decieved and fooled all these years about what the Bible teaches about Church. Goodness Gracious, I wish that we’d had some knowledgeable people around whenever we got our heads together way back when and decided how a Church ought to be set up.

Lew, the very reason my family became Baptist is because we wanted to go to a Church where they stuck close to the Bible. We’d been Methodist for a long time. We couldnt stay with them anymore. I believe that the Baptist are closer to a NT Church than anything else out there.

David

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Volfan007 (I’d call you David, but it’d probably be too confusing with the other David),

When I was first saved I decided to become Baptist because of their position on the Bible. I felt (and still feel) that it was very important to take the Bible seriously. But I discovered that words and action are two different things.

I would suggest that even people who are “closer” to being biblical than anyone else can still grow and learn and become even more biblical - that’s my desire.

God’s Glory,
Lew

By Bart Barber on May 14, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Lew,

It is implied in the verse that I have already cited…the one that explicitly speaks of the leaders of a church as those who “keep watch” over the souls of the church and “give an account” to God.

Also, in your earlier comment, are you suggesting that lost people shouldn’t be allowed to attend church?! That we ought to remove those in sin from the opportunity to hear the gospel?

By Bart Barber on May 14, 2008 at 2:00 pm

David,

My apologies for double-responding to Lew before responding to you. My responses to him are short and easy to do. I find this always to be the case when conversing with you: Your comments push me to carefully nuanced replies and lengthy ones. Much harder to do. I almost never get one finished before I am interrupted, and then the opportunity slips away. I feel bad about it, because sometimes it looks like I’m snubbing your comments. I’m really not—they’re just harder to do.

By David Rogers on May 14, 2008 at 2:00 pm

David Worley,

Actually, I am fairly familiar with the Plymouth Brethren, having fellowshipped and worked quite closely with several who have been identified with this movement.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post on the Plymouth Brethren at my blog that you can find here:

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2008/01/plymouth-brethren-william-macdonald-and.html

Although I find many things about the Plymouth Brethren to admire, I still find my beliefs and practice to be more compatible with that of the Southern Baptist Convention (and in Spain, the Spanish Baptist Union).

More important than all of this, though, is my bottom-line loyalty to the Body of Christ at large.

By David Rogers on May 14, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Bart,

No problem at all. Actually, it took me quite a while to piece together my last response to you, as well.

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Lew,

My poor mistake, I apologize. I should have asked you if you considered Baptist ecclesiology closer to biblical ecclesiology than any other system of theology promoted by any other group, denomination, fellowship, assembly, gathering, affiliation, etc, etc?

By Bart Barber on May 14, 2008 at 2:21 pm

David,

Your point is well-taken about the association: That I expect the implications of church discipline to extend beyond the boundaries of what I believe is the New Testament ekklesia.

Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the situation described in 1 Corinthians 5 and the situation described in 2 Corinthians 2 are matters placed before the entire group of recipients of these two letters. This is, it seems to me, the natural reading of the text, since no bit of language hints to us that these were the private matters pertaining merely to some subunit of the whole. Although I believe that these passages teach more than this, the crux of my argument in this matter is simply that this problem of church discipline was laid in the lap of the church in Corinth as a whole.

As to Chloe and Stephanus in 1 Corinthians 1, I do not deny that New Testament Christians did indeed have households. Indeed, in 11:22 we find these households acknowledged and specifically contrasted to the assembly of the congregation. Have supper in your house and observe the Lord’s Supper with the “church of God.” I do not deny that congregations sometimes, maybe very frequently, met in houses, but it seems to me that the twenty-first-century term “house churches” carries a good bit more freight than that.

To go point-for-point with you:

1. We are in agreement that water baptism is the outward “spiritual birth certificate” by which individuals become a part of a local church “family,” if I understand you correctly.

2. I sort of answered above, I think.

3. Although I am comfortable with coming to these conclusions, I do not see that they are necessary to my case. I’m merely pointing out that the “majority”—whatever it is—pertained to the “church of God which is in Corinth” and not to some subunit thereof.

4. It seems to me that the text of this letter, with its instruction to the “church of God which is in Corinth” to handle this matter “when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit,” tells us a great deal about the degree to which the “house churches” (if they existed in the sense that the modern phrase connotes) coordinated with one another on matters of church discipline.

5. I do not believe that an affirmation of church membership and an incredulity toward the concept of the “city church” lands me in the hammerlock of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. I am not arguing for connectionalism because I am not a proponent of the “city church” concept. I think that there was, at the time of these letters, one and only one ekklesia in Corinth. Problem solved for me.

6. Good point in here. I think I’ve already addressed it above.

By Tim Rogers on May 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Brother Alan Knox,

I am not disagreeing with you about the first part of the story. I agree that this locutionary form began as a reconciliation between brothers in Christ. However, the illocutionary force does not stop in verse 17. In the pericope of the scriptures you will notice that the antecedent changes. When Jesus says “you” in verse 18, He is no longer speaking to the person individually, but now speaking to the church, as you see from the word “you” being “ὑμῖν”, which is a Personal Possessive Pronoun in the Dative Plural case.

In this pericope of Scripture He is speaking to a group according to 18:1. For example. If my little girl ran out of the house and left the door open, I would ask, “Who left the door open?” The locutionary form is a question, but the illocutionary force is that she needs to return and close the door. If I am speaking to my congregation, I say; “If God spoken then a response is required”. The locutionary form is a group hears, but the illocutionary force is that an individual response is needed.

Thus, the scripture in which we are debating begins with Jesus speaking to a group, but he is speaking about an individual that is wronged to take responsibility. The illocutionary force demands that the church act, if the individual wronged comes to that point. = Church Discipline.

Blessings,
Tim

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm

David,

You should really work harder to make it easier for Bart to reply to you. But don’t worry, I forgive you ;).

Bart,

I don’t Hebrews 13:17 has that broad of a context. Let us assume that you ~780 members in the local group that you Pastor. Do you lead them all? Do you know them all by name? I am not at all attacking ‘large’ churches. What I am getting at is that maybe “leaders” in Hebrews 13:17, is a little more than a Senior Pastor and applies to everyone who is leading/discipling someone. Which, by the way, is something that all Christians should be doing (at least eventually). So back to my original question. Where is the distinction?

God’s Glory,
Lew

By Bart Barber on May 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Alan,

Your question, it seems to me, presumes some wide gulf between the topics of “church discipline” and “reconciliation of brothers.” Could it be that Christ regarded them as closely related topics? Perhaps we ought to do so as well?

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 2:40 pm

CB,

It seems like the point shouldn’t be who is and who isn’t the most biblical. The question should be: how do we become biblical and encourage others to do the same?

We can talk all day about how great Baptists are because they are more biblical than Catholics. But really, if they’re both holding a pile of dung, is one better off than the other?

Which is why I say that Baptist’s words and actions disagree. We spend too much time defending what we have. Sure what we have is nice, it seems to have worked for a couple hundred years too. Catholics are still going strong after 1500. Are we that convinced that Jesus was a Baptist that we’re willing to throw away reason and not trust the Holy Spirit to guide us into bigger and better relationships (not only with him but with others).

God’s Glory,
Lew

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Vol and David,

I, too have worked with the PB. I have great respect for them and can work with them in many things.

Yet, their ecclesiology is not baptistic. Some of what David and Lew, along with many others are saying is very close to PB ecclesiology.

Baptist Identity folks are constantly invited to go join Landmarkers due to the impression (misguided, of course) of some of the brothers (those close to Plymouth Brethern) that we are adhering their ideas of ecclesiology (Landmarkers).

In other words, David, since you think I might be a Landmarker, I thought I might help you with your identity by suggesting you join the Plymouth Brethern.

Fair is fair, is it not my brother? You help me with my identity and I help you with yours.

Then if the city church paradigm becomes the new thing we can all work together to start one somewhere there is not a church.

Maybe the Mormons, JWs and the Seventh Day Adventists can join us.

We will all join in immersing, pouring and sprinkling our converts. Of course when we get up to 144,000 we will all have to stop and become little gods to accommodate everybody in our city church as described in David’s paradigm.

Did I get it right there guys?

:-) :-) :-) ;-) (The last smile was a “wink”)

cb

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Thanks Geoff :).

I think I’ll add “skosh” to my vocabulary… being originally from Maine, living in NC and now in GA, I’ve picked up a few new words.

Maybe role/roll will fit in there somewhere too :).

God’s Glory,
Lew

By Rob Ayers on May 14, 2008 at 2:57 pm

CB -

Sorry man, but I do cheat sometimes :-)

Lew - your points in order.

1. This is merely a modern descriptive term of an overseer who has been given authority of other elders in an ecclesia. By the way who has been appointed overseer in your fellowship? (1 Timothy 3:1, Titus 1:7).

2.Membership List(s) - I think that Bart has dispensed with your argument pretty forcibly. I might add that you look at Acts 2 - how did the church know that the mass conversion on the day of Pentecost “added 3000 souls)? Answer, the named and numbered them afterwards. Saul had lists of believers whom he persecuted. Where did he get the lists?

3. The focus of 1 Corinthians 14:26 is the last half, “Let all things be done for building up.” In what way has Baptist ecclisiology delimited the application of the command of this verse?

4. There are many and multiple factors contained within 1 Timothy 3. Of which are you referring to when you say “inaccurate application.” Be specific if you are going to make the charge.

5. Are you saying that Baptists do not “mind their own business” and that is the process of their ecclisiology? - a) that is out of context with 1 Thess 4 which aspires that the Thess love the brethren “more and more” as Paul had taught them and; b)what you are suggesting is another fallacious argumentation known as “false cause.” Prove that Baptists don’t love because of their ecclisiology.Otherwise you are “spittin’ in the wind.”

6.This is a pretty serious charge. In what way has Baptist ecclisiology added or detracted to what is spoken here? Again, be specific - don’t give me bullet lists if you don’t desire to explain yourself.

7.I had a professor who once told us, “don’t use etc. in your papers - if you don’t want to list them all, then don’t - if you do, then list them all - otherwise it is the lazy way out.”

Rob

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Lew,

First, Jesus was and is not a Baptist. Jesus is the God-Man. He is God incarnate. Don’t play with that.

Secondly, are we as Baptists just holding a pile of dung in our hands?

Thirdly, You say we need to become biblical. I agree wholeheartedly.

Therefore, Let us read the Bible with open hearts and minds. If we do we will become baptistic in our thinking since Baptist theology is closer to biblical theology than any other system of theology within the human experience.

(Baptist theology is certainly not dung. That is what Paul said of Hebrew theology and Paul was not a Baptist either.)

In conclusion by becoming Baptist after reading the Bible and becoming baptistic we will by default become more biblical.

That is the rationale of me saying Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology. If that is the case Baptist theology cannot be dung and you should seriously rethink saying that.

cb

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 3:12 pm

David Rogers,

Do you believe baptist theology, especially Baptist ecclesiology is dung?

If not, it is time for you to cowboy up and tell brother Lew he has made a serious theological misstep.

cb

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Rob,

Quickly, because I’m heading home and probably won’t check this until later tonight or morning.

1. Are you sure? Where in scripture does the Job function of the Senior Pastor exist?

2. I disagree and are you serious? We’re really going to say that Membership Lists are proved in scripture because of a number and someone who had a list of people to persecute? We’ll do anything to prove our traditions.

3. By ignoring the first half.

4. My first question is, to whom does 1 Timothy 3 apply? The person you don’t know and just hired as a Senior pastor? If only him, does that mean that I can do whatever I want?

5 & 6. No, 1 Thes. 4 combined with Acts 20, indicates to me that we ought to be following Paul’s example; work with our hands, not get paid by a group of people to teach every Sunday morning and do the things they should be doing the rest of the week.

7. Luckily I’m not writing a paper or taking a class with your professor.

God’s Glory,
Lew

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 3:21 pm

CB,

Which is it, was Paul a baptist or not? According to your standard “If we [read the bible] we will become baptistic in our thinking since Baptist theology is closer to biblical theology than any other system of theology within the human experience.”

“In conclusion by becoming Baptist after reading the Bible and becoming baptistic we will by default become more biblical.”

So therefore, Paul and Jesus must have been Baptist. Although granted they didn’t read the Bible.

Wait, are you suggesting that we put away our Bibles so that we can be more like Jesus and Paul?

God’s Glory,
Lew

By David Rogers on May 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Bart,

The main difference I can find between what you say to me in your last comment and what I am saying is that you appear to be a bit more certain of the correct interpretation and application of certain Scriptures than I am. For me, in the meantime, the very clear, and evidently high priority, injunctions about unity in the Body of Christ weigh heavy in my mind and heart.

Also, I don’t really have the appetite to get into the whole ordeal about “church ordinances” again here, since it is a bit off topic. But, technically, I would not agree that “water baptism is the outward ’spiritual birth certificate’ by which individuals become a part of a local church ‘family.’” I would say that water baptism is the outward ’spiritual birth certificate’ that was normally expected as an evidence of membership in the universal church, and thus, as a requirement for membership in a local church. Centuries of paedobaptist ecclesiology combined with evangelical soteriology have, however, made for an biblically anomalous situation in which membership in the universal church and water baptism should not be necessarily conflated.

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Geoff,

There is more than one conversation going on here today and I am sure david knows what that means so that is all you need to know about that.

What you don’t see is exactly that; what you don’t see. That does not negate what I am saying to David.

He knows exactly why I said he needs to cowboy up.

Now, you cowboy up. If you think Lew’s dung comment was hyperbole (and it was. Any fool could see that) do you think it was a poor and uncalled for effort?

Go ahead, Geoff, call the dance.

cb

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Lew,

You get no cigar on that one. Even Geoff may have to agree there.

cb

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Lew,

Do you or do you not believe Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology?

Are you a Baptist?

If you are, why do you remain in something you see as dung? Hyperbole accepted.

Should not you seek to be that which you see as most biblical even if it is to leave all systems currently extant all together?

cb

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 4:25 pm

CB,

I don’t understand what is going on here. Really. Obviously I do not think that Baptist ecclesiology is “biblical” - I do think it has things that are biblical and things that are not biblical. Something is not whole unless it contains all the parts. I don’t think Baptist Ecclesiology has all the parts. Perhaps someday it will, but when that day comes, it probably won’t look like what you and I call Baptist.

Most would probably consider me a Baptist. I don’t like labels though. I’d rather not have a label be a stumbling block between me and other non-Baptist brothers. If I were in a room with a Methodist, a Presbyterian, and a Catholic, they’d all say I was Baptist. However, you may not :).

By the way, when I decided to join the Baptist Regime, it was before I read my Bible entirely. After reading (a few times now) you say that my ecclesiology is more like PB.

What did I do wrong? Shouldn’t I be more Baptistic? For what it is worth, I’ve never even heard of PB until today.

The “dung” comment was actually an analogy, perhaps a tad hyperbolic. My point was, it doesn’t matter if you are “close” to the real thing, or “closer” to the real thing than another, what matters is being the real thing. We shouldn’t stop at being “closer” than anyone else.

You asked, “Should not you seek to be that which you see as most biblical even if it is to leave all systems currently extant all together?”

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing and promoting. Shouldn’t we all be seeking to be biblical? I want to do that from the Bible relying on the Holy Spirit rather than relying on Baptist Glasses (or any other denomination for that matter). If that leads me to use some ideas that are Baptistic, fine. If it leads me to use some ideas that are PB, fine. Maybe there is something to learn from both?

God’s Glory,
Lew

By Rob Ayers on May 14, 2008 at 5:43 pm

CB - I am going to “man up” - watch -

Lew,

1)1 Timothy 3, Titus 1. Read.

2)Ad hominems are unbecoming of you. All traditions get started somewhere. Membership lists started here in the Scripture. They are a part of the Old Testament liturgy as the Jews were very adept to keeping family lists for generations (See Numbers, Nehemiah for some examples) - these same Jews took this “tradition” into the early church (See Matthew 1). Are you disputing the premise? The early church both numbered and named the early believers on lists. Paul had the list. Paul also instructed Timothy about the church of Ephesus and their “widows list” - who to keep on, and who to leave off (1 Timothy 5:1-11). Yes the early church did keep membership lists. Probably not as extensive of record keeping as the average church today - but nevertheless they did. What’s the beef then?

3)Which part of the first half? Multiplicity of messages and lessons? Hymns? Messages in tongues? Verse 27 and 28 delimits the tongues to “if they are interpreted” otherwise “keep silent.” Verse 33,34, and 35 further delimits the speaker(s) to men alone - all women were to keep silent. Right? Does Baptist ecclisiology limit the number of message(s)given in any one service? No - churches can choose to have any number of messages given by any number of people at any one meeting, if it be during the teaching ministry (Sunday School, Discipleship, Small Group) or the Worship Service. Through the model we promote hymns, scripture readings, prayers, testimonies, and sermons. In practice we have Hymns, prayers, and one message. That is how we have decided to keep things “orderly.” How is this out of line with the teaching in total of 1 Corinthians 14? “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” (33)

4.Are you claiming to be an overseer? (If you recall, I asked if in your assembly that if anyone was called to be an overseer - you did not answer the question). Most churches do a rather rigorous job of “vetting” an overseer - if they don’t they are being foolish - but again this has nothing to do with the “model” but with the practice. Are you suggesting that the only way that an overseer is “legitimate” is if he has been in that assembly for a while? Those who were not appointed by the apostles (See Titus) were called by their assemblies (See Acts). Since we have no more apostles, we are left merely with the “calling forth” of leadership. Baptists churches do that religiously. I find most of you “Simple Church” guys doing whatever you conscious dictates anyway, so I really do not know the purpose of your last statement to me.

5&6. As you should well know, the number of churches with full time staff at SBC churches are small - most do “work with their hands” - and by the way - ministry is tough stuff every weak, 70-80 hours or more on the average. Even full time Pastors supplement their income with other jobs. Get real. The Old Testament model was the priest who was supported by the generous tithes of the people. The New Testament church should be supported by the generous free will offering of those saved by Jesus. Churches should support those who maintain the flock of God with their living. The teaching of 1 Corinthians 9 suggests that Paul’s lifestyle was the exception rather than the rule among the apostles. Take this up and contemplate on it for a while: “Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?” - 1 Corinthians 9:8-12.

7. Unluckily you are having a discussion with me. Dismissive tactics such as “etc.” is not an affirmative argument in a discussion. Neither is calling your opponent(s) position “dung.” Is this following the will of the Master from Luke 6:37?

Rob

By Bart Barber on May 14, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Rob,

Very well done.

Lew, you call upon folks like Rob and myself to produce biblical justification for our convictions, but when we do, you are dismissive toward the biblical foundations we give. It seems never to apply if you can imagine some framework that would make it not relevant. Your claim cannot be that we are ignoring the Bible, neither can it be that we have not sought diligently to do what we see taught in the Bible. Rather, it seems to me (and feel free to correct me where I’m wrong) that you are following a deliberately minimalist hermeneutic by which the commands of scripture are only binding upon the church if we can’t imagine any way to be uncertain about what they teach. Are we bound by 1 Timothy 3? Well, how do we know for sure that these qualifications rightly apply to elders today? I guess we’ll just ignore those verses since we can’t be sure. Hebrews 13 teaches a specific higher level of responsibility in the relationship between church leadership and church membership, but it doesn’t include a preprinted organizational chart, so we can’t be 100% clear exactly what it means, therefore, let’s not keep track at all of church membership and let’s have somebody who is our “pastor” without us having to make any covenant commitment to brothers and sisters in a church, and let’s just ignore Hebrews 13 because we’ll never really know what it means.

There’s an epidemic these days, it seems to me, of people who are convinced that they hold in their hands an inerrant-but-indecipherable Bible. God must be great at accuracy but horrible at communication.

Baptist ecclesiology represents a diligent effort to be obedient to a number of biblical commands regarding the nature of the church. I promise not to say that Baptists have gotten it all perfect (which we haven’t) if you’ll promise to quit saying that we’ve made it all up without any biblical foundation (which we haven’t).

By Alan Knox on May 14, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Tim and Bart,

It seems that we agree that the desired outcome of both Matt 18:15-17 and 1 Cor 5 is reconciliation. We disagree on the context of Matt 18:15-17.

Remember, this line of discussion started in response to Tim’s comment #16 that Matt 18:15-17 (specifically) could not take place among believers in general (what Tim called “universal church”). I suggest instead that Matt 18:15-17 does not depend upon “membership lists” but upon relationships. Any believer should seek to restore a broken relationship (as in Matt 18:15-17) even if the two parties involved do not share “church membership”.

-Alan

By Alan Knox on May 14, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Bart,

As far as I can tell from reading back over these comments, Lew has never claimed that Baptist ecclesiology is “made… up without any biblical foundation”. Instead, he has asked people here to consider exactly what you said in your comment: Baptist do not have it all perfectly. Since Baptist ecclesiology is not perfect, and since Baptist desire to coninue to grow and to learn and to become more biblical, we as Baptists should welcome those who challenge our Baptist ecclesiology from Scripture.

-Alan

By Alan Knox on May 14, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Rob,

I don’t intend to speak for Lew; its clear that he can speak for himself. But, I would like to point out a few weaknesses in your answers to him.

1. Lew asked for the job description of the Senior Pastor. Since Lew has mentioned pastors in this comment thread, I would assume that he was not asking about pastors in general, but specifically about the “Senior Pastor”. Neither 1 Timothy nor Titus mentions the “Senior Pastor”.

2. Lew asked for someone to prove a “membership list” from Scripture. Since the point of this post and this comment thread is about church membership lists and not genealogies (Matthew 1) or a list of widows (1 Tim 6), I do not see where the Scriptures you list deal with church membership lists at all.

3. Perhaps 1 Cor. 14:26 is implemented in the church meetings that you are part of. I’ve never seen this practiced myself, and apparently Lew hasn’t either. However, I’ll believe you when you say “Baptist ecclesiology” doesn’t limit who can speak during the church meeting.

4. I’m assuming (and Lew would have to verify this) that Lew is talking about the Baptist ecclesiological practice of hiring pastors after a brief interview process. Even a long interview process would not allow believers to verify that a person consistently demonstrates the characterstics of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. (I’m wondering why you called Lew a “Simple Church” guy. He hasn’t identified himself as such, though he may be.)

5&6. As Lew pointed out, in 1 Thess 4 (and I think 2 Thess 3), Paul calls for all believers to “work with their hands” like he did. He distinguishes his “minstry work” from “working with his hands”… he did both. Simiarly, at the end of Acts 20, when speaking specifically to elders, Paul again exhorts them to follow his example in working to provide for their own needs. Now, you may disagre with Lew’s application. But, it seems clear that in these two instances, at least, Paul is calling people to provide for themselves without having to rely on donations from other people.

Now, I’m sure that many here will disagree with Lew. Some will disagree with what I say above. However, please note that of the issues raised in this comment thread: membership lists, city church, senior pastors, number of people speaking in meeting, the method of appointing pastors, salaries for pastors, even whether or not Mat 18:15-17 refers to “church discipline”… none of these issues are specifically “Baptist” issues, and none are related to whether or not a person is “Baptist” or not. Believers - and especially Baptists who are people of the Book - should always be willing to discuss scriptural issues, even when those issues differ from our traditional practices, without questioning whether or not a person is “Baptist”.

-Alan

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Rob,

1. 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 say nothing about job function. Merely qualifications. And again, those qualifications should apply to all Christians, should they not? So, my conclusion is that those believers who actually meet those qualifications should be people we consider to be our leaders. But as I’ve said before, it’s hard to know if someone meets those qualifications when hiring a stranger, no matter how thorough you are.

2. I’m not sure how my statement was ad hominem, perhaps Appeal to Ridicule - sorry. Of course all traditions get started somewhere. I’m not against making lists. I make a grocery list before I go grocery shopping. I have a list of scripture references. I’ve seen interesting lists of genealogies. And frankly, I don’t care if you want to start a club of Christians with a list of members. My point is, that how we use these lists with the church today is unbiblical. A list does not determine who we have a responsibility towards, that you will never find in scripture. Well, except those who are on the Widow list, but that seems more like a Meals on Wheels list, rather than a discipleship/discipline list.

3. Yes, multiplicity of teachings, psalms, revelations, tongues, and interpretations. Now, I don’t expect (and I don’t think Paul did) that EVERYONE would teach, but that those who were given a teaching from God would be given the opportunity to do so. But you’re right, Baptist Doctrine does not prohibit this. Word vs. Practice I suppose. For what it’s worth, I feel that v. 34-35 is a quote and v. 36 and on is a rebuke for those who actually believe that women need to remain silent. At least that’s how I understand Paul’s abrupt “Was it from you that the word of God {first} went forth? Or has it come to you only?”

Paul just sat down and wrote to us exactly how to do things “properly and in an orderly manner.” Why do we, Baptists, think that limiting the number of people who can teach and sing is a better alternative?

4. No, I do not think anyone has recognized me as an overseer. I’m saying that the only way an overseer is legitimate is if he meets the qualification. But as I said, I believe the only way to know that is to actually know the person(s) who are being considered overseer(s). Are you sure we have no more Apostles?

5 & 6. Yeah, I understand it’s hard work… especially since most of you guys are doing the work for most everyone else too. Perhaps the expectations are all wrong. Maybe you should stop doing the work and expect the people you are leading to do what they are called to do. I agree that Paul was most likely an exception. But that he was an exception as an example for us to follow (as he states).

7. I did not say that someones position was “dung”. Again, it was an analogy to prove a point. It doesn’t matter if you are “close” to the real thing, or “closer” to the real thing than another, what matters is being the real thing.

God’s Glory,
Lew

By Lew A on May 14, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Bart,

I find it hard to believe that you see me “imagin[ing] some framework that would make [your justifications] not relevant”. I may be challenging your framework, but I’m not sitting here trying to figure out how you could be wrong. I do agree that I tend to be a minimalist. I think it is very scary to think that people would rather have a dogmatic position where Scripture is silent instead of admitting that they just don’t know. I would not say that a minimalistic attitude tries to “imagine any way to be uncertain about what [the commands of scripture] teach.” In fact, quite the opposite. If it is a command from scripture than that is exactly what it is - imagining away around a command is definitely not the attitude of a minimalist (not a pure minimalist at least).

Did I say we should ignore 1 Timothy 3? I thought I said that it applies to everyone. And those who meet the qualifications are those who we should recognize as our leaders.

Are you 100% sure what Hebrews 13 means? If so, run with it. If not, why be dogmatic? Admit that you could be wrong… it just might reveal something to you. As for me, I am slightly confident that I understand what it means… but heck, I’ve been wrong before.

I’m sorry, but where is the “covenant commitment” in scripture? I mean, apart from the covenant that we have in Christ’s blood.

You said, “There’s an epidemic these days, it seems to me, of people who are convinced that they hold in their hands an inerrant-but-indecipherable Bible. God must be great at accuracy but horrible at communication.”

Don’t worry, I do not fall into this category at all - quite the opposite (Innerancy - Part 1, <a href=”http://www.the-pursuit.net/2007/09/13/inerrancy-part-2-scripture/”Part 2, & Part 3.

You said, “I promise not to say that Baptists have gotten it all perfect (which we haven’t) if you’ll promise to quit saying that we’ve made it all up without any biblical foundation (which we haven’t).”

Did I say that you’ve made it all up? By all means, I don’t think you’ve made it all up. I do recall saying in a past comment that there are some good and same bad in Baptist Ecclesiology. If I’ve said that you’ve made it all up, then I sincerely apologize.

God’s Glory,
Lew

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Geoff,

At what point do we say a person is not Baptist? Do you believe there is such a point? Maybe that would be forever debatable, especially due the strength of the postmodern mentality so prevalent today.

I really believe Bart has made a very good point about so many claiming, of late, that we have an “inerrant-but-indecipherable Bible.”

That speaks volumes to much of our problems in the SBC right now.

Our ecclesiology is solid. It is biblical. It is closer (we say “closer” out of reverence to God, knowing He alone is perfect and nothing we do or say will ever be of such a perfection as is God’s Word) to Scripture than any other theological system known to humanity.

If you know of one better let me know.

I do agree that we can debate issues of theology, but some things are solid and debate cannot change the truth of the position. I believe our ecclesiology to be one of those. How shall we do better is my question?

Yet, I do not contend that you or anyone is not a Southern Baptist if he differs with me on ecclesiology to some degree. That would be silly.

I will say that the BF&M is the minimum guide to our cooperation and for employment in our boards, agencies, and institutions. I think most all would agree to that being true.

Therefore, I contend that if a person cannot sign the document without caveat he or she should not be employed within our entities. I also believe no one should be allowed to be a trustee who cannot sign the document as it is.

I have learned that this has happened more than once. This simply confirms my contention that some of the trustees and administrations of some of our entities are not being responsible to their positions to safeguard our entities.

Being a Southern Baptist and arguing general, established theological positions is one thing. Being employed to work for a SBC entity according to the general consensus of the convention as a whole as to the substance of the minimum guide of our cooperation is another matter entirely.

cb

By cb scott on May 14, 2008 at 10:30 pm

BTW, Geoff,

Resolutions do mean something. That has been a fact in the SBC for a long time.

cb

By Bart Barber on May 15, 2008 at 6:35 am

Well, memories are short, aren’t they?

For Alan and Lew, I return your attention to the origin of this discussion.

1. Geoff posted an article on Regenerate Church Membership.

2. Lew posted a comment arguing not against “lists” (as though the debate is over whether you ought to keep a notepad and pen) or “Senior Pastors” (a phrase that I myself have repudiated multiple times) or any other such thing, but arguing against the CONCEPT of church membership at all…saying that we ought to “do away with membership altogether.” Regenerate church membership is an inherent part of Baptist theology (which is essentially an ecclesiological movement), and to “do away with church membership altogether” is to repudiate Baptist theology.

What is the CONCEPT of church membership? It is the idea that some people belong to this local body of believers and others do not, and that we know exactly and precisely which ones those are who belong and are the pastoral responsibility of the church’s leaders. Keep up with it however you like. WE don’t have a “list,” technically—we have a DBISAM database maintained by ACS software. Keep up with it in your head, for all I care, but the concept is simply that you know the definite set of people who are members of this local ekklesia.

Now, Lew argued that we should do away with church membership altogether. What were his reasons? Among them was the bold claim, “There is no church membership (other than [the universal, invisible] church) found in the pages of the Bible.” So much for Lew’s affectations of “well, maybe I’m right, maybe you’re right, let’s all just be humble about our position.” He flatly stated that church membership, regenerate or corpus permixtum, is found nowhere in the Bible—that, by implication, those who follow any practice of church membership have entirely made up the concept without any support from “the pages of the Bible.”

3. Geoff, Rob, C.B., and I all jumped in and, among the four of us, did a pretty thorough job of demonstrating that the concept of church membership has solid and widespread support from “the pages of the Bible.”

4. Lew dismissed all of those passages offered in support as either irrelevant or unclear.

5. And THAT’S how we arrived where we are now.

By Bart Barber on May 15, 2008 at 7:13 am

Geoff,

I’m glad to oblige you, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on one point. It is not reasonable to expect to discuss the substance of belief without discussing the importance and implications of belief. There must be beliefs that constitute the sine qua non of the meaning of the word “Baptist.” I do not deny that some have wrongly loaded into that word such things as the employ of the proper version of the Baptist Hymnal in one’s worship services. Yes, it can be done wrongly rather than rightly, but that’s no reason not to do it at all.

If you will have a forum where people will have freedom of discussion, that must include (I believe) freedom to discuss things about which one is passionate, as well as to discuss what are the indispensable beliefs which define our various partnerships and theological niches.

Perhaps it would be conspicuously incongruous for me to be the one asserting the proper boundaries of blogging decorum, for we all know that I have not always perfectly located them, myself. But the question of whether David “belongs” in the SBC is one that was first raised online by David himself, and one that he has frequently thrown up voluntarily toward others in the midst of online discussions about IMB policy. Many of those debates were not personal—were theological and objective—until David brought in something like, “Are you saying that someone like me shouldn’t be an IMB missionary?” For C.B. to take up that thought is not bullying; it is C.B. offering his honest reply to a question that David has posed to others a thousand times. If David will use that question when it serves his rhetorical advantage, he mustn’t howl too loudly when others engage it to his rhetorical disadvantage.

At least, that’s how I see it. And perhaps it is possible to have a discussion that is civil, and yet also addresses these defining issues of our day.

By Lin on May 15, 2008 at 7:48 am

Perhaps the problem is that Lew is making too much biblical sense. (membership lists, actually knowing the character of the people you hire, pastor as a paid vocation, etc.)

He understands the difference between man made traditions and what is seen and taught in the NT.

Lew, your comments have been a breath of fresh air. Thanks.

By volfan007 on May 15, 2008 at 8:08 am

Geoff,

I have to agree with Bart here. There are times when people have to ask themselves… am I really a Baptist, or not? And, if I’m not, then maybe I need to consider being whatever it is I really am. And, while we can do things “differently” in many, many areas of Church life and still be Southern Baptist; there are times when people step over a line that makes them not Southern Baptist. And, while there are areas of theology that we can see things differently…in many, many areas; still, there are things that ought to be so basic to being Baptist that we cant tolerate people stepping over that line….if they want to have people in leadership positions from thier Church, or if they want people to be appointed as missionaries from thier church.

Geoff, I attended your Church one time. We had a good time of worship, and a good time of fellowship afterwards. Did we not? I enjoyed your worship service, and I did not see anything that would make you “not a Southern Baptist.” Now, I do believe that you ought to have Deacons…the right kind of Deacons, who are servant leaders, and not a Board of Directors. And, I would have a hard time partnering with other denominations except in things like a clothes/food closet, praying for our nation, etc. I would absolutely be against starting churches with another denomination, or starting a seminary with another denomination. And, I’d have to admit that I’d have a hard time joining with another denomination in doing evangelism. But, Geoff, I have helped in starting Churches with contemporary music, and who only have business meetings four times a year, and who dont have hymn books, and who dont have Baptist in thier name. And, I’m a Baptist Identity kind of guy. I have no problem with different styles of worship and names of the church, etc. As long as they dont become too wild and wierd and step over Scriptural guidelines.

But, Geoff, when people start saying that they cannot sign the BFM 2k due to caveats, then I would have to question whether they should be Southern Baptist missionaries, or trustees, or any other kind of leadership position in the SBC. Dont you? I mean, the BFM 2k ought to be a bare minimum of what it means to be a Southern Baptist kind of Christian, who has the privilege of leadership or support from CP and Lottie and Annie dollars. Do you not agree with this?

Geoff, I love you in the Lord, and I pray that the Lord will do great things in your Church. You are a good brother in Christ, and you have a precious family that any man would love to have. And besides, you’re from a great part of the world!!!!

David

By David Rogers on May 15, 2008 at 8:10 am

Bart,

I will try to make this as brief and as clear as possible, so I will not be misunderstood.

The issue I have with CB is not his calling into question my service with the IMB. My issue is that, as illustrated in the following exchange of comments, he has publicly questioned my integrity and honesty.

In comment #62 on my post, The One True Church, CB, making reference to the BF&M, asks me: “Would you now sign it with only one caveat or would there be more?”

In comment #63, I answer: “Still only one caveat.”

In comment #64, CB replies: “In many of your posts you take issue with other articles of the BF&M.”

And yet, when I pressed him to provide evidence to back up this claim, he has yet to do so; and, in addition to this, he refuses, despite my repeated pleas (both on this blog, and by way of private e-mails), to retract the aforementioned statement.

From my perspective, this has nothing to do with rhetorical advantage or disadvantage, and everything to do with my defense of my personal integrity and honesty.

By cb scott on May 15, 2008 at 8:14 am

Geoff,

Please know that I would never say you were not a Southern Baptist pastor or your church was not a Southern Baptist church for the reasons you present as reasons some around you state.

Frankly, if I were located around you and heard such attacks on you and your church I would defend you in a very pro-active way. There is evidence to prove such would be the case.

As for David; I do not believe I have attacked him. He perceived me to have called him a liar. I did not. I assured him more than once I was not calling him a liar. I told him and others I could work with him in many things.

I did say I believe him to be at a crisis relating to his affiliation to the SBC and the IMB specifically.

As Bart has referenced. It is David who has brought that “dog to the hunt.” I just threw my dog in the pack to see where they would go.

I challenged David, as did Peter, on his city church paradigm as to the ultimate conclusion such a paradigm would lead us. He has yet to respond to the questions either of us have presented. Rather he made remarks that made us both appear to be bullies.

Obviously those remarks were successful as is evidenced by your comment to me in #70.

That is