;)
Democratic Processes: A Convenient Concept
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, Church & Missions, News & Culture
As one surveys the New Testament, it is extremely difficult to find what we in America like to do, …which is to cast a vote like we were part of some democracy. I’m sure we have all experienced our share of exciting business meetings, poised on the edge of our seats, steadily gazing around the room as the deacons are huddled near the back of the auditorium eagerly counting those secret ballots. Surely if there is an important and sensitive matter in the church, we must have a secret ballot to protect the voting rights of all of the members. We certainly do not want to embarrass anyone or make them uncomfortable. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion whether right or wrong,… in fact it would be down right unchristian to expect anything different, …would it not?
I am curious. Does exercising “democratic processes” promote democracy? Is the church really a democracy? It was not until 1963 that the convention felt the need to include these two little powerful words “democratic processes” in its revised Baptist Faith and Message. There seems to be a lot that these little words convey.
But, it may be wise to consider these two questions…
Do they convey a path to unity?… or do they promote a foundation for disunity?
Democratic processes as we experience it in America empower the individual, creating the need for an effective lobby, so as the processes grow more complicated, it typically results in factions. Was this the biblical model,…the democratic way? Democracy is designed to promote the “majority” above the “all”,…. whether as they cast a vote and a heretical doctrine is supported, or whether by majority vote a foundational doctrine is sent to its grave.
I am curious again. Can a church be lead to unity without these two little powerful words? I believe there is no question that she is….but what have you experienced? Has the American culture developed a new convenient and familiar concept for the success of the New Testament church?
Give me some thoughts…..Pro’s and Con’s when democracy (democratic processes) is cherished in the church.
Blessings,
Chris
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Chris,
Is this a veiled plug for a presbyterian form of church government or an honest inquiry?
First of all, I don’t believe you are ever going to find it part and parcel of the American psyche to cast lots on major church decisions as people seem prone to do when selecting deacons in the First Century.
The key to a successful presbytery is that the men are universally regarded as being above reproach and free from political considerations. Barring that, I’m afraid it’s doomed to failure. It will be no better or worse than democracy at creating unity.
As one wag quoted, “Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the others.” A presbytery may be an acceptable alternative in some circumstances, particularly with larger churches, but in most of our smaller ones, it amounts to much the same outcome as the alleged democracy.
rick
Good post, Chris.
I see the church as Christ’s body. There is only one head in this divine flowchart. The under-shepherd is not part of the head and should be part of the body. I say that with all due respect. I believe the body makes up the decision making process and all have a vote. We always want to make the right choice, however, that is not necessarily the way God would have it. God is more interested in the heart of belief. If we exhibit the heart of unbelief it will come out in the decisions we make. People need to have every opportunity to make responsible and spiritual decisions. The “democratic” process should allow the people to vote their conscience and never be influenced by anything other than the Holy Spirit. Pastors and Teachers must preach and teach the Word faithfully. The business meeting must be used to train the people in faith, wisdom, knowledge and understanding. How can you make a mistake if the people are focused on God when making the decision of what faucet to put in the bathroom? Nothing is minor to God when it comes to trusting Him.
Brother Rick,
This is a real inquiry…..
The “democratic processes” in Presbyterianism are not much different than Baptist really…..the processes are just raised to another level which creates another set of problems. The question is really not posed against denominations per se… The question I am asking is in essence “How does democracy advance unity? Or can it really meet that challenge?
This is not a popular subject for many to talk about… because most of the time we would rather vote for the outcome.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Bruce,
You have clearly indicated the distinct principles of living within this adopted family and body of Christ! “Democratic processes” seems to me to be a poor choice of words and fails to communicate the distinctive principles of biblical unity required for the family, since it is incumbent that “all” in the body understand the mission. Scripture reflects that when decisions were made in the body it met with “all” of the gathered, not just some or a narrow majority (where some like to imagine democracy). The one passage that is rendered in some translations as the English term “majority” (2 Corinthians 2:6, apo tōn pleionōn), if misunderstood can allow for a devaluation of the “agreement” context within passage.
It is essential that leaders understand and work to have the congregations understand the biblical principle of affirmation leading to “the all”, relative to the simple “majority”.
The difficult part is knowing how to lead that direction and how does democratice processes bode in that learning environment.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Forgive me for being less than clear in my post. Note I used the lower case “presbytery” relating to a group of elders (presbuteroi) rather than the denomination.
There is a rising tide of folks who favor the idea of elders, but I think this is an outcome of the larger churches which make a straight democratic process unwieldy.
I agree that democracy is not always compatible with unity, but I think this is the fault of a bad definition of what we understand unity to be. If unity is a unity of purpose and operation, that is one thing. If it is a lock-step conformity to traditions and practices, that is another. And if it is rigid adherence to offering an intellectual assent to a series of doctrinal propositions with ever finer splitting of fine hairs, then yes, unity is at risk.
However, if unity is a group of people assembled for a common purpose with the right to voice differences of opinion and challenge entrenched ideas and practices, with the resultant dispute being one of “how we handle things from now on,” then I’m all for it. The early church had their own share of controversies, most notably what to do with all the uncircumcised heathen who have no background and history in our tradition and want to be Christ-followers alongside us. Should we expect them to adopt our customs and traditions in order to be true Christ followers or should we allow them to establish their own customs and traditions as led by the Holy Spirit or should there be a third way in which various traditions can all unite around the person of Jesus Christ regardless of what we serve for dinner, how we dress, or whether or not we’ve had a body modification.
Wait. That’s the same question we’re wrestling with today – only we’re calling it “Baptist Identity” instead of the Gentile Controversy as they had in the NT.
rick
Brother Rick,
Ah yes…..this is where the rubber meets the road…..thank you for clarifying when you said….
“However, if unity is a group of people assembled for a common purpose with the right to voice differences of opinion and challenge entrenched ideas and practices, with the resultant dispute being one of “how we handle things from now on,” then I’m all for it.”
I think your understanding of the Gentile controversy is a wonderful analogy to expose how either democracy does work or if it is deficient for unity. The key is how did the Apostle Paul mitigates the misunderstanding and relates those same principles to us and those other disciples.
In other words, will a “majority vote” yield “being of the same mind”….or does “being of the same mind” come by different means?
I would contend that the Apostle Paul was not teaching “majority voting” principles. Was he leading the Corinthian church into parliamentary procedures of democratic processes in order to work out these sinful habits that had been accumulating through the years…surely not.
He said an interesting thing in his introduction….
1 Corinthians 1:9-10 “God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (10) Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
Paul seems to rely upon God’s faithfulness, to bring the called back into fellowship with His Son. I don’t think any voting is required for this type of leading…yet it may take a lot of patience.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I attended a church in Baton Rough, LA that had a process that set my way of thinking about how the church functioned. Of course, they had an elder board in place that focused on the spiritual side of all decisions. The church was offered to purchase the Strip Center they were renting to Worship in. It had two (2) established business that also rented space there. The offer was $900K which was reasonable. There was additional space the church could grow into. Everything about the purchase was positive. They went through the unique process they had set up to prove God’s will about purchasing the building and it was voted on unanomously to buy now. However, one elderly lady went to the elder board and said something that convinced them to come back to the church and place the purchase on hold. A little over a year passed and the owner of the property had some financial problem that cause him to come back to the church and ask if they still wanted the property. He was willing to let them have it for $250K. They didn’t hesitate.
The way we do God’s business is important to the spiritual health of the church. We must use every means within the body to example our faith. Nowhere else is faith established so well as within Christ’s body. We may even find money in a fishes mouth when we least expect it.
I don’t think there is much correlation between type of church governance and unity/disunity.
One of the most contentious aspects in many churches today is “musical styles”. I thought the “music wars” were over in the 1990s but they are still being fought today and people are walking out and going to other congregations. I guess leaving is the utlimate form of “no unity”.
Brother Roger,
Most congregations are forced to vote with “ballots” or “feet” these days…. those are democratic processes.
Of the two church governance systems mentioned so far (Baptist and Prebyterian) , both seem to advance voting as a means to unity. How would church governance “not” be correlative? Are you saying that church governance has no impact on unity?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, I try to operate committees and even the church on the basis of what is called “Spirit-led consensus.” We discuss and pray about things until God’s spirit brings us to unity about that issue. Once, in the last decade and a half, we proceeded on an issue after a split vote (it was about 65-35 percent).
Its a principle Henry Blackaby taught. If God is leading, the Spirit can bring the body together in unity. I have seen it over and over again. Rather than forcing votes and proceeding on issues by small majorities, we wait a while and we find ourselves drawn together in unity.
I think key here is waiting on God rather than trying to force my agenda. I probably need to explain this more in depth, but its Monday morning.
A popular saying of a friend of mine is, “The sheep shouldn’t lead the shepherd.” This statement is very insightful and should be weighed against scripture in both the commands and practices explained in the NT.
I don’t see democratic processes as being inherintly good or evil in regards to the issue of unity within the church. The challenge of balancing congregational democracy and elder leadership is the source of so many books, articles, discussions (and arguments) that I won’t get into it. Suffice it to say I believe there should be a balance.
As far as experience goes, I’ve seen severe democracy cripple the efforts of ministers to exercise church discipline or to violate the polity of the church constitution (instead of ammending it). Under a plurality of elders, I’ve also seen it denied to the church to confirm the admission of an elder to to question the qualifications of a man for that position. I believe that balance is key, but finding that balance is not widely written about (in my limited searches) or explained in light of the NT. I think that someone who writes a book about the relationship between elder and congregation that allows for some democracy and some elder authority would have many publishers eager to sign.
Based on my experience, I’d say that democracy can be a support for unity when the supremacy of Christ and the gospel is the primary focus of the church. When democracy supercedes our committment to Christ and the gospel, it always descends into dissention because the focus is on the “will of the people” and not the “will of God.“
And, I’m not a limber guy. I don’t stretch far enough to find Amercian-style democracy in the New Testament.
I think we really need to work on what we call unity. If we compare the church to a football team (instead of a boring sport like baseball, sorry Dave) the unity of the team centers around a single purpose of getting the ball over the goal line and preventing the other team from doing the same. Every single position is unique and contributes to the goal. Each person has a different role to play. They often train differently, hang around with different folks, and often form “cliques” within the team. Skill players tend to hang out with skill players, linemen with linemen, and special teams are often out by themselves as loners. But does the team lack unity? Not always.
So it is with the churches. Individual concerns and preferences need not be a sign of disunity or even discord. Roger mentions the music wars as an apropos example of how a loss of focus on the purpose for assembling together can lead to discord. This, then, is the role of leadership – to keep the vision always forward and to articulate practical ways that vision can be realized. In this way, people are not only willing, but are even eager to celebrate differences as they contribute to a richer worship experience. The danger is that politics often trumps vision and personalities supplant purpose. When that happens, the form of church government is irrelevant to the disunity and discord.
It’s interesting that I was listening to Alister Begg’s sermons on Diotrephes last week and thought that this applied to a much broader audience than just the squeaky wheels. The whole search for preeminence (whether it is in the mother of James & John asking for their sons to sit on either side of Jesus’ throne, or a dispute among the disciples of who was to be the most prominent) is what undermines unity. Just look at what Diotrephes was doing. Then ask, “Does this resemble anything I’ve seen lately?”
8Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth.
9I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. 10So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.
11Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.
I think the church’s unity would fall within the scope of trusting God’s providence in any matter to be agreed upon. If I am voting, I am saying that the result becomes God’s will and I am in unity and should support it. Are all saved? No. Then unity will only be among the true believers whether they voted for or against. Conflicts will be there to give us the opportunity to express the love of God and to help conform us to the image of Christ as we proceed.
When the vote came to the church there were three (3) lines we were given to mark; 1. Yes, I beleve this is God’s will and will support it. 2. I am neutral because I have not had time to consider or pray for it. I am in agreement with the majority. 3. No, this is not my preference but will move with the majority. (They would also have the opportunity to visit with the elders prior to the vote)
I would say no, Chris. Unity (however we choose to define it and I see that none but I have hazarded a definition yet) is a function of competent leadership, not governance. Leadership can inspire or destroy unity irrespective of the form of governance. This is why I think the NT spends almost no time addressing governance structures. The emphasis on qualifications and considerations of church leaders seems to be almost exclusively a function of their character rather than their office or position.
This is good, and it seems that the comments have brought out how the church is called to biblically exist together,…..
- with patience
- not Lording anything over
- led by the Holy Spirit (which incorporates the fruit he brings in the church)
- kindness
- pursuing common goals (the prize of the high calling)
- prayer
- submitting to God’s Word
And I believe this does bring unity.
Dave, you describe it as the “Spirit-led consensus”, where the “all” move forward after a period of time. This is very helpful, I believe. This can actually be accomplished at all times as well with all the congregation. The key is time. We seem to become impatient in a society of time compressors. What could be more important than unity…and unity for the most part is achieved by thorough teaching and a generous amount of time.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Rick,
You are on fire this morning! Good stuff. Unity is established and defined as the “unity” of the Spirit. In other words a genitive of possession of the Holy Spirit. So the definition, I believe, is predicated on what we see in Christ’s accomplished work the Holy spirit informing our minds of that “love”.
Ephesians 4:12-16 “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; (13) until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (14) As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; (15) but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, (16) from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”
The body is built up on love in a sequence of events for the glory of God. The body of Christ is born through unity of the delivered faith (faith to faith) – knowledge of Jesus Christ – maturing the believer – returning the believer to love. This motion of unity is not something that is best handled through what some have conveniently ordered as democratic processes…. Because as someone said earlier and as the Apostle reverberates…it is what “every joint supplies” – according to the proper working, allowing the goal of love to be accomplished.
So we (as leaders) should strive to lift up “every joint” – as the “proper working” is taught, and if some form of voting… (we prefer to use affirmation, since we don’t use paper, …we use each other and patience) is pursued, there is know doubt a tremendous benefit and progression of unity when “all” and every joint supplies.
Thank you digging into the definition of unity.
Blessings,
Chris
My thoughts on this are a bit disjointed, and I, admittedly, don’t have any real firm convictions on this issue. But, here goes anyway…
As I understand it, “democratic processes” exist in order to avoid abusive control by a powerful or vocal minority. Inasmuch as this works, and there really is the danger of abusive control, I see this as a good thing. There must, however you go about it, be some way or another to keep in check the ambition and abusive control of those who are prone to fall into these errors.
However, I have also observed the tyranny of “democratic processes” in a church, as well. I have seen where power-hungry people, or super-convictional people learn how to “work the system,” gathering coalitions around their position or cause, which definitely is a detriment to unity. And the majority is not always right, nor is it always in tune with God’s Spirit.
Ideally, it would seem to me, it is the responsibility of the recognized leadership (i.e. elders) to know the people, and to lead the people in jointly seeking God’s guidance. Each member’s voice should be heard and taken into account. Leadership should really know what the various members of the congregation think. They must take the time to really listen. If a group gets big enough, the only practical way of this happening is through so-called “democratic processes.” Yet, it seems to me that it would be much better if this could be accomplished through something much less impersonal. I suppose this would require smaller churches. Even in smaller churches, though, the tyranny of “democratic processes” can be just as tyrannical.
I suppose the solution is not found in church government systems, so much (though they can, in certain situations have their value: “Good fences make good neighbors” as Robert Frost wrote), but rather in the character and heart of the people themselves, and especially the leaders.
I apologize for my typing and grammar this morning…I hope your getting the gist of my posts through the goop.
So, are the terms “democratic processes” a good way to describe and communicate how the church functions? Is there a better more descriptive term or terms that directs our minds to “unity” without the image of standing in front of a voting box with a folded up piece of paper, and the feeling of satisfaction?
Blessings, Chris
I like Dave Miller’s approach – “Spirit led concensus” and that is what I strive for. I have tried to teach the Body where I serve that we do not move forward on a simple majority. Now, I do not know an efficient way to show we have reached a consensus than to vote, so we vote.
As far as unity – it is Spiritually attained. The method of church government has little bearing when the Spirit is not leading, and any form of government looks good when the Spirit is leading. One of the problems with chasing the latest fad in ministry is the way we overlook the Spiritual component. Rick Warren’s way has been very effective at Saddleback. W.A. Criswell was effective at Dallas. Hey, Jack Hyles was pretty effective in Indiana. I would say where these ministries were effective for the Kingdom the number one ingredient was the Spirit of God.
My Seminary President once offered that the hope for America was a couple of terms by a “benevolent dictator.” The emphasis on “benevolent.”
Steve in Montana
Hey, if a democratic vote was good enough for the early church in Acts 15, it’s good enough for me!
What?
Oh.
They heard everyone out, discussed the issues in depth, built consensus, and in the end there was a unified response confident of the leading of the Holy Spirit. Hmm…
Well, that ain’t how we do it. Everyone in favor of democracy, raise your hand…
Art, your response was a hoot. Good job.
Keep in mind that the recommendation at the end of the Jerusalem counsel:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Was later contested by Paul:
23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” 27If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
31So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
Our pastor was preaching through Acts on Sunday morning, so when he covered the Jerusalem Council I asked him about the I Cor. passage and he said, “Sshh! I don’t think anybody noticed,” and gave me a wink. Wasn’t a road we wanted to go down at that time, but one that is pertinent for our discussion. What is the role of the individual when it comes to matters of conscience and consensus?
A couple of thoughts from one who is an strong advocate of congregational polity within the church….
Define “unity” – if it is “the absence of conflict” I think you have the wrong definition.
Anybody who proceeds on a split vote is being foolish. I have won a lot of votes on a split consensus and never proceeded with the approved policy.
Majorities are not always right – but God often speaks through His people. The true test of a majority is not if we agree with them or not, but is the majority consensus “biblical” or not – and then what will our conscience allow us to do at the point of that disagreement?
Under-shepherds are not “the shepherd” and so we should be following His voice just as all the sheep are. Our leadership should model that spoken by Peter (1 Peter 5:2-3): “…shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” I think many pastors have lost site of this with the mad rush to Presbyterianism or even Catholicism or Methodism.
Rob
Chris:
I have been away for several hours because I had to take my wife to the doctor.
As to your question, “Does church government have much of an impact on unity?”
My answer is no, it does not.
First, I don’t call “people voting with their feet” something that has much to do with a “democratic form” of church government — or any other form of church government. People leave churches all the time for a variety of reasons — regardless of what type of church government they have.
I use leaving as the ultimate expression of disunity because people are so disenfranchiesd and/or upset that they leave. Obviously there is no sense of unity between them and the rest of the congregation — otherwise they wouldn’t be walking out.
I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. People naturally gravitate to traditions, styles, etc. they are confortable with. Chruches acknowledge this because they offer “culturally tailored” services — such as “traditional”, “contemporary”, and services in various languages for what we used to call “minority” populations.
I’ve seen people leave up close and personal over the years. I guarentee you they didn’t leave because so any particular method of church governance. They left because, and this would be a paraphraise but it pretty closely summarizes their view, “this church has changed and left me behind. . ”
If you have something going on in the church that causes a significant portion of them to leave, then you can’t possibly maintain the fiction that you have unity. Sometimes to grow a given church congregation will focus on certain “market segments” which are demographically dominent or growing in the community. The congregation may choose to do this in order to grow or at least stay stable in attendance/membership. But this is not something that is done to promote “unity” — rather it is a choice for “survival”.
Rob, I am not against congregational polity. I just do not think strict majority rule is a wise way to operate, at least not most of the time. If we wait, seek God, study and pray, I have found that spirit-led consensus can be developed.
Leaders lead, then the congregation approves. My point is that a 52-48 vote is not a wise way to seek fellowship. Seeking unity and consensus often requires waiting.
That font of all wisdom – Wikipedia – has this wisdom about “consensus”
Consensus in the English language is defined firstly as unanimous or general agreement; and secondly group solidarity of belief or sentiment. Idyllically, achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member’s considered opinion. Those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus. Action without resolution of considered opposition will be rare and done with attention to minimize damage to relationships.
General agreement based on a solidarity of belief. The key: “those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus.”
I find this concept to be the most important. Let everyone have their say. Listen. This concept has been lost in the SBC, in which debate is squashed and dissent is seen as rebellion.
I think this comment stream shows why this is one of the best SBC blogs in the blogosphere in my opinion.
I also liked what Dave said in #10.
I don’t think there is anything wrong in establishing how the end vote will be determined on a case by case basis. Laying out the ground rules before allowing a decision to be voted on is wise, even if you choose to approve a 51/49 result. Everyone simply needs to know before going into to final lap. Just establish how it is going to be done and make sure the final results have no fingerprints on it. The final result should say, “This is God’s will”.
Another point.
Roberts Rules of Order is only a guideline. It’s not in the Bible, either. Many Baptist churches take some of the RRO steps into the church business as if it is God’s way of running the church. It would be to our benefit to create an order for ourselves that eliminates the “business” and “political” side of RRO.
Bruce,
On a funny (perhaps sad note) note, I was in a church where I felt some members knew RRO better than they knew the Bible.
What is more scary, Andrew, is those who THINK they know RRO but actually don’t.
Anderew – I’ve been there, too. It is because of these things that help me identify the fleshly part of a church. I think it is easier to identify if a church is more spiritual when the business meetings are in process. If a person is looking for a church, make sure you know how a business meeting is suppose to be conducted and then go to one of them. That tells you all you need to know from the pulpit to the pew.
What Dave says makes sense, too.
In 1963, there was an emphasis on the soul’s competency before God, freedom in religion, and the priesthood of the believer. Which I believe was the main cause for the additional language of “democratic processes” to be added to the statement. This attention to the individual introduced a term that was familiar and for the most part successful to an American audience. Yet, it has now grown more in the direction of a democracy than was intended IMHO.
It seems that in this small group of commenter’s, the consensus is that “unity” is pursued to include “all” not simply the majority, even while never abandoning the principles inherent in what is understood as soul competency, freedom, and the priesthood.
Even though I believe the language is a bit ambiguous in the BF&M at this precise point (i.e. democratic processes), the language itself may only cloud, yet not necessarily negatively effect or persuade what the church is able to do in pursuing the unity of the Spirit. Maybe someday we will have an opportunity to make a more precise statement for unity.
Blessings,
Chris
I’m not sure I see folks casting lots to pick “deacons” … they were told to select them, folks with certain qualifications. If they did use lots, it’d be OK, though, in light of Proverbs 16:33.
Hmmm .. maybe that’d be good in a lot of things today .. like SBC elections .. in light of what Proverbs 16 promises.
Heeding the majority wishes seems to have failed in lots of cases in the O/T, too.
I’ve been in churches with both congregational and presbyterian (ruled by a presbytery) forms of government, and I can tell you the latter works better within my experience.
A lot better.
Brother Bob,
That is some interesting insight….Why do you think it works better, since instrumentally (only lesser democratic processes at another level) it is no different than the Baptist?
What specifically makes it work better?
Thanks,
Chris
Good post Chris.
It’s hard to debate a topic such as this because as a church, and as individuals, though sometimes wrong in some matters of polity, have a desire to please God in a certain framework that comes from our experiences. But I will say that it certainly is possible to govern a church without a democratic process. I will also go as far to say that the democratic process has done more harm in the church than good, especially as it relates to the Pastor. Rather than bore you with my opinions of this, I will simply post a link to a recent blog post on my site dealing with Robert’s Rules of Order and the church.
http://www.gracethroughfaith.org/node/186
Regardless of the system that one is comfortable with, work the system that you have with a unified purpose. A strong and unified church can overcome a lot of polity errors.
Thanks Scott,…I think you are correct that a church that is pursuing unity will come to realize the malnutrition of over-reaching polity structures.
Blessings,
Chris
I agree with Rob in comment #23. All the Church should pray and decide what is God’s will for them. The Pastor/Elder/Bishop or Pastors should pray and lead, but he/they is not the Pope.
BTW, my wife used to a Cumberland Presbyterian with Elder rule. The people there complained…a lot…about the Elders not giving them a voice, nor listening to them. I think that some people have the wrong impression that Elder ruled will bring some sort of unity… more than a congregational ruled Church. It doesnt. It just leads to the people getting angry with the Elders over decisions and things that are done.
David
Brother Vol,
I agree with you brother,…. Elder rule, as some know it, does not fix any problem per se. Yet Elders that rule well are a tremendous blessing to the church according to the direction of the Apostles.
It seems that every time the concept of Elders that rule is broached in the SBC, it is defined by Elders that are “not” ruling well. This lack of understanding may be due to a lack of exposure and/or identification with the instruction of the Apostles. Presbyterian’s probably are not the poster child for what the Apostle’s refer to as Elders that rule well…since they simply raise voting to another level.
You have hit the homerun concerning prayer though….because how else will we know God’s will unless we pray.
Blessings,
Chris