Ecclesiology Matters More Than I Thought
I am a lifelong Southern Baptist. Within the world that is the SBC, I’ve been a church member, a summer missionary, custodian, a seminary student, and a pastor. After 41 years of involvement in Southern Baptist life, I am happy to be part of the SBC. At the same time, after 41 year of involvement in Southern Baptist life, I find myself convinced that many of the issues faced by Southern Baptist churches can be traced back to ecclesiology. I also find myself convinced that ecclesiology matters, and it matters a lot.
I attended seminary at The Southern Baptist theological seminary. As an MDiv student in Systematic Theology III, I wrote a paper on ecclesiology. In that paper, I argued that the New Testament presented an ecclesiology marked by elders (overseers, pastors) who led, deacons (servants) who served, and a congregation that held authority under the headship of Jesus Christ. I stand by those convictions today, and I am thankful to serve in a Southern Baptist church (Immanuel) that tries to function within these parameters.
I don’t have numbers or statistics for what I’m about to say – just an anecdotal observation. Most Southern Baptist churches do not follow the ecclesiology I described above. Instead, most are led by a single, senior pastor (in theory). Most are functionally controlled by a team or teams (deacons, committees). Most do not have a healthy, biblical view of church membership (hence, our bloated membership numbers compared to actual attendance numbers).
I’ll be honest, I used to think these issues didn’t matter that much. I used to think bad ecclesiology was something that could be overcome as long as a pastor preached well, pastored well, led well, and kept the engine of the church running. I was wrong.
On a personal level, I pastored two churches where power and authority was delicately shared between a single, senior pastor (me) and a team (deacons). Neither church had a plurality of elders, and both had an unbiblical view of what it really means to be a member of a local church. While pastoring these churches, things went reasonably well. Hence, my advice to other, younger pastors used to be, “Preach well, pastor well, lead well, and keep the engine of the church running.” I thought that if a pastor did these things well, there was no need to work toward ecclesiological change. Again, I was wrong.
I now think ecclesiology matters, and more than I ever thought. Churches need to understand what an elder (overseer, pastor) is and is not. Churches need to have a right understanding of the role of deacons in a church. Churches need to embrace a biblical view of church membership. Ecclesiology matters. Churches with poor, unbiblical ecclesiology will resist biblical teaching and needed change no matter how well the pastor preaches, pastors, leads, and keeps things moving within the life of the church.
Disclaimers
Before I talk about the dangers of unbiblical ecclesiology and the benefits of biblical ecclesiology, I want to offer two “disclaimers” relating to the pursuit of biblical ecclesiology:
One, ecclesiology is NOT magical. You can (and will) have problems in a church that is sound in its ecclesiology. Getting your bylaws and your organizational structure “right” will not eliminate the presence of sin in you or your people. Two, pastors should NOT come into established churches like wrecking balls, exploding structures and changing ecclesiology on day one. This is especially true if the pastor does not intend to stay long enough to see these changes through.A Plurality of Elders
There are several problems with the typical Southern Baptist model of a single, senior pastor leading a church.
Most Southern Baptist churches have not wrestled with the interchangeable terminology used by the New Testament in speaking about the leaders of a church. The three terms used are pastor, elder, and overseer. Each word describes a different aspect of leadership in a local church, but each word refers to the same office (see the graphic below).
Sometimes the single, senior pastor comes out on top in terms of authority, and that dominant pastor rules like a tyrant. Other times the single, senior pastor is topped by a team (deacons, committees), and that doormat pastor is not able to lead. Neither scenario is helpful or healthy for a church.When it comes to the usage of the title “pastor,” Southern Baptist churches are all over the map in unhelpful ways. Some smaller churches only recognize a single, senior leader with the title “pastor.” All others are given other staff titles. On the other extreme, some Southern Baptist churches grant the title “pastor” to anyone and everyone on staff. In determining who can serve as a pastor in a Southern Baptist church, many churches depend on a man’s internal sense of “call” rather than relying on the objective standards set forth in passages like 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Also ignored is the affirmation of a local church in recognizing those who God truly has called to the office of pastor. This reliance on a subjective sense of call has been adopted by those who now argue that females can hold the office of pastor. The fact that the New Testament restricts this office to qualified males doesn’t matter as long as these women are able to articulate a convincing experience of being “called” by God. Many Southern Baptist churches undervalue training and theological education. It’s true that many churches write job descriptions with educational requirements (especially medium to larger Southern Baptist Churches), but it seems that the further away you move from a seminary or Bible college, the less theological education you will find among Southern Baptist clergy. This suggests that some Southern Baptist churches prioritize availability and proximity over preparedness.In contrast to a single, senior pastor at the head of a local church, the New Testament speaks about a plurality of elders (pastors, overseers) who lead the church together. This model has several benefits.
A plurality of elders (pastors, overseers) recognizes that the New Testament uses these terms interchangeably to refer to the group of men who are called by God and set aside by the church for leadership (see the graphic above). Recognizing the interchangeable nature of these titles is more than nomenclature. It is a recognition that the men who lead a church are called to be shepherds, leaders, and teachers. It is also a recognition that the New Testament ought to guide our selection of pastors (overseers, elders). The qualifications spelled out in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are not simply suggestions, but they are binding requirements in the selection of leaders.This model follows the pattern displayed in Acts 6. In the early church in Jerusalem a crisis necessitated the development of ecclesiology. The apostles led the church to set aside a group of men to serve the body so that the apostles themselves would be able to focus on prayer and teaching the Word of God. To be clear, pastors are not apostles, and not everyone agrees that the men set aside in Acts 6 were “proto-deacons.” However, I think the pattern of Acts 6 applies well to what the New Testament says about the roles of pastors and deacons – pastors leading through prayer and teaching, deacons serving the church to preserve unity. Focusing on the apostles as proto-elders (pastors, overseers), they were convinced that the leaders of a church should lead through faithfully teaching the Word of God. When plurality is the norm in a local church there is less dependence on paid, full-time pastors. For example, in the church I pastor we have several elders who are full time employees of the church, several elders who are part time employees of the church, and several elders who make a living outside the local church. This situation allows the church to have a larger group of pastoral leaders without a larger payroll. This model also provides a church with greater stability in the absence of a main, preaching pastor who moves to another ministry role, retires, or dies. Even when the main preacher is gone, the church has a consistent, stable group of qualified men leading in his absence.Deacons Who Serve
There are several problems with the typical Southern Baptist model of a group of deacons who try to control the affairs of a church, even if that means exercising authority over the single, senior pastor.
In the New Testament, deacons are called to serve the church. In many Southern Baptist churches, deacons take the initiative to control a church and micro-manage the pastor. This power-grab is understandable because many smaller Southern Baptist churches experience a never-ending rotation of single, senior pastors. Without a plurality of elders in place, this leadership transition is jarring and disorienting for a church. Often times these deacons know they will outlast any pastor who is called, so they try to be the de-facto leaders of the church. While the motive is understandable, playing fast-and-loose with ecclesiology is unwise.The process of deacon selection in Southern Baptist churches is often a flawed process that looks nothing like Acts 6 and that completely ignores the qualifications spelled out in 1 Timothy 3. Many times deacons are picked because they are consistently involved in the life of a church. Other times they are picked because a quota needs to be met (determined by bylaws). Still other times deacons are chosen because they are leaders in the community, they are well-known in the church, or they show some potential for leadership and service.In contrast to a group of deacons who try to control the church and limit the authority of a single, senior pastor, the New Testament speaks about a group of qualified men who serve the church. This model has several benefits.
The word deacon literally means “servant.” So expecting deacons to be a serving body is faithful to the teaching of the New Testament and the meaning of the word deacon. It’s clear that the New Testament expects all believers to serve in their church (1 Corinthians 12), and a group of deacons who serve the church also serve as an example for the rest of the church to follow. This model follows the pattern displayed in Acts 6. In the early church in Jerusalem a crisis necessitated the development of ecclesiology. The apostles led the church to set aside a group of men to serve the body so that the apostles themselves would be able to focus on prayer and teaching the Word of God. To be clear, pastors are not apostles, and not everyone agrees that the men set aside in Acts 6 were “proto-deacons.” However, I think the pattern of Acts 6 applies well to what the New Testament says about the roles of pastors and deacons – pastors leading through prayer and teaching, deacons serving the church to preserve unity. Focusing on the proto-deacons of Acts 6, these men were wise men and filled with the Holy Spirit.A group of deacons set apart for special service in the church is faithful to the teaching of the New Testament. For one thing, a group of deacons who serve rather than lead preserves the distinction between elders, deacons, and the congregation. This three-part structure is presented in the opening verses of Philippians where Paul addressed the saints, the elders, and the deacons. We must not confuse the office and function of elder and deacon. Additionally, when a church puts an emphasis on deacons fulfilling their biblical function, there is greater likelihood that a church will give serious attention to the qualifications spelled out in 1 Timothy 3. These qualifications have everything to do with a deacon’s character and family life, and nothing to do with his community status, with how many people know his face and name, or with his potential for leadership.Meaningful Membership
When it comes to understanding membership, Southern Baptist churches are all over the ecclesiological map. So many of our churches have serious problems in the present because of a history of not emphasizing biblical church membership. Consider the following problems that are common in Southern Baptist churches.
In a typical Southern Baptist church, especially our smaller churches, there is no process for receiving new members. All a person has to do is walk down the aisle at the end of the service, fill out an information card, and shake hands with people after the service. That’s it. They’re a member. Additionally, when people move to a new community, most churches do not have a process by which they remove relocated members from active membership. Instead, many people maintain a membership in a church in a community where they no longer reside. Many of our Southern Baptist churches do not present new members with any sort of expectations for membership. Churches rarely tell new members what they should expect from their new church, and churches rarely tell new members what their new church expects from them. Without clarity about expectations, both churches and members are set up for misunderstanding and disappointment. Churches rarely communicate the importance of attending, serving, giving, and fighting for unity.In all honesty, most churches treat membership in a church like membership in any number of other, human organizations. Some think of it like membership at a Sam’s club – if you pay your dues (membership fees at Sams, tithes at a church), you’re entitled to “access.” Other churches think of church membership like membership at a country club. Again, if you pay your dues you become part of an exclusive club and gain access to certain facilities and amenities. Still others think of church membership as something people are entitled to in perpetuity – not unlike a person’s citizenship in the country of their birth.Instead of the all-too-common view of church membership that devalues attendance, service, giving, and unity, churches must give serious attention and effort to establishing meaningful membership expectations. New members classes and membership covenants are helpful tools in establishing a biblical view of membership, and once established, a biblical view of membership has several benefits.
An emphasis on meaningful membership begins with the clear expectation that members of a church be Christians. This may seem obvious, but for many people it’s anything but obvious. Baptists have a long history of arguing for “regenerate” church membership, and this argument is tied to our view and practice of baptism. However, functionally, many Baptist churches are plagued with problems because their laziness in establishing meaningful membership has allowed unregenerate people to populate the church. These people vote in congregational decisions, and some of them end up in positions of leadership and influence within the church. This problem must be addressed through a process of establishing meaningful and biblical expectations for membership. Emphasizing meaningful membership means establishing a culture of devotion and eagerness to meet together for worship (Hebrews 10). Membership must be more than having your name on the roll. It must involve a commitment on the part of the church member to be present, supportive, and active in the life of their church. This commitment to participation fits well with the meaning of the word “church.” Literally, a church is a “congregation” or an “assembly.” Without being overly simplistic, it is worth pointing out the congregations “congregate” and assemblies “assemble.” Thus, meaningful expectations for membership are essential for a church actually being a church.In addition to being faithful to the meaning of the word “church,” meaningful membership allows a church to live out the various metaphors used in the New Testament to describe the church. For example, the church is described as the “body” of Christ. To be healthy, every member of the body must be present and active. Another metaphor is the “family” of God. Families exist in community, and families spend time together. A third metaphor is the temple of God. The temple was a place where the Hebrew people came together for worship, and this is exactly what the people of God are expected to do when they meet together as a church.
