Lance Ketchum: Why I No Longer Refer To Myself as a "Fundamentalist"

Surely there is some balance that would help prevent the kind of division that seems to infect IFBism?

If we’re talking about IFB, then they do. If they don’t, I don’t know what kind of Baptist polity they’re practicing! Jack Schapp had Deacons. I believe they were sitting behind him when he preached his “golden shaft” sermon.

[TylerR]

Susan:

I have not experienced what you are describing first hand, but I believe it stems from a very weak Deacon board.

Chip:

We obviously disagree on this. I don’t want to start a discussion on this now because it will take much more time and energy than I have now, so I’ll leave it at that …

Too many simply do because that is what has always been done.

[TylerR]

Susan:

I have not experienced what you are describing first hand, but I believe it stems from a very weak Deacon board.

Well, it should be noted that sometimes (usually?) it’s reversed - the deacons want to hire a very weak pastor and use him as their puppet. It happened in a church I knew of, only the pastor had enough sense to stand up and get the deacons disciplined when they started fomenting division in the church because what they wanted was Scripturally wrong. After that was over, the pastor lead the church through a change to institute a proper elder/deacon board, and now we have an annual reaffirmation for each person in their positions (including the church secretary and treasurer :) ).

Also - Someone mentioned that the elders should have the power in a church, not the deacons. I think that most of the posters here are using the term ‘deacons’ in place of ‘elders’. I know the church I grew up in did…we had deacons (elders in the NT) and trustees (deacons in the NT). I prefer the terms elders and deacons myself.

[Jay] Also - Someone mentioned that the elders should have the power in a church, not the deacons. I think that most of the posters here are using the term ‘deacons’ in place of ‘elders’. I know the church I grew up in did…we had deacons (elders in the NT) and trustees (deacons in the NT). I prefer the terms elders and deacons myself.

Acts 8:3

As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

I think sometimes we get too caught up on a single word. Both ekklesia and oikos are used in this verse. Ekklesia meaning the more general body (Church universal) and oikos to referr to the houses where the church met (the local body). Instead of just looking at ekklesia, let us also look at the references to the body of Christ. Are there multiple bodies of Christ or just one? Since I believe there is only one, that means I believe that the universal church does exist. Does that mean we should minimize the importance of the local church- of course not.

BTW, JoelCS, I think you are Oliver’s son. I miss him. He used to tell me to remember to pray for him every time I stub my toe. I have not stubbed my toe for a while, but when I do, I still pray for your family- especially Anne.

[Jay] Well, it should be noted that sometimes (usually?) it’s reversed - the deacons want to hire a very weak pastor and use him as their puppet…

Whatever the church dynamic, I think this just proves the point. With local church autonomy, in the sense of being isolationists (you mind your business and I’ll mind mine), the Biblical principles of pastoral, elder, and deacon qualifications can be ignored, because there is no accountability. The congregation has no recourse if leadership is out of control, and the leadership has no recourse if the congregation stages a coup. Bottom line- no one really answers to anyone. Independent churches are often too independent. I don’t see any NT passages that lead me to believe that local churches should act as if they are The Only Church In Town and the only one they answer to is God.

IMO, this is what happens when churches divide over doubtful disputations instead of cooperating to evangelize and disciple their communities, and encourage each other toward sound doctrine and holiness. And I’ve yet to see one of these ‘church leaders’ who will separate over every jot and tittle be consistent about it. They start to pick and choose who they will ‘separate’ from, and it becomes a form of manipulation, even to the point of coercion/extortion, instead of truly contending for the faith. Then when you separate from the disobedient brother who is causing division, to them it is proof that they are right and everyone else is sliding into apostasy like a ball bearing on a greased plank. Delusional much? But they will stay in their pulpit because they are an independent local church.

I see your point, but the ultimate authority for a church congregation lies with the church congregation. They are the ones that select, endorse, and retain their leaders (Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty - Acts 6:3). Of course, bad ideas tend to become self-perpetuating - bad people select bad leaders who drive out good people and create worse people.

Case in point - Hammond never got to be the way it was solely because Jack Schaap was the pastor. It got to be the way it was because no one in the church was willing to stand up against Jack Hyles’ various abuses many, many years before…even the leaders wouldn’t stand against Hyles (if they weren’t hand-picked by Hyles to be on the board). Now it’s just a train wreck, and I’ve seen that cycle enough to know that it is in existence and that it’s very, very hard to break.

As an aside - that’s why I believe so strongly in sites like SI. These kinds of sites and discussions can be helpful and worthwhile. People can go somewhere else and get additional input or feedback on things ranging from the best e-Reader to LCO/UCO discussions like this and consider/evaluate what’s being handed out as gospel in pulpits or classrooms. Ten years ago, as the Internet was just getting off the ground, there was no other way to network with other believers as quickly or effectively.

It’s a catch 22, obviously. I think this is why the idea of associations and denominations are so appealing (even if we *say* we don’t agree with them). Look at the whole FBFI discussion again if you want to see that dynamic in action.

“Only the congregation and elders are shown with leadership responsibilities.”

Aren’t deacons the representative arm of the congregation?

[Barry L.]

“Only the congregation and elders are shown with leadership responsibilities.”

Aren’t deacons the representative arm of the congregation?

Just a quick note,

I finally have all of my files and such in the hands of my publisher and the major edit of my book is complete. The Title of the book is “The Pyramid and the Box: The Decision Making Process in a local New Testament Church.” This will be published by Wipf and Stock Publishers under their Resource Publications label.

In the book I make the exegetical case that there is evidence for at least 5 decision-making “groups” in the church:

1. Lead Elder/Senior Pastor

2. The Elder Team as a group

3. The Deacon Team as a group

4. The Congregation as a whole

5. The individual church member

Would love to have you all purchase said book. I believe a close look at decision-making in the church at least as it works out in the NT is the corporate authority of the congregation, the leadership of the elders and the “servant-ship” of the deacons. Chip is right - there is little to no evidence that deacons are to “represent” the congregation on any “democratic” basis. I hate to give away the essence of my book before it’s even out - the elders and the lead elder essentially make decisions in the spiritual sphere of ministry - the deacons in the physical/benevolent sphere - the congregation has been given a specific set of occasions when their voice is to be heard - individual believers have also been given certain “orbs” of decision-making as it relates to their place in the body. One of the dynamics that makes this tough is when categories “overlap” in real life. I suggest a Biblical approach when that happens. No matter what your polity is - as along as a congregation is clear headed as to what the “job description” of each group is and then there is an attempt to allow each group to function with it God-given basis - followed with a commitment to mutual submission - a congregation can be healthy.

Just a shameless plug. Wipf and Stock thinks the book will be in print in 3 - 5 months.

Straight Ahead!

jt

“The independent churches are not accountable to anyone but God”.

And that’s a bad thing? Who else are they accountable to? Please show me anywhere in the NT where the pastors appealed to anyone but the apostles.

So what’s the remedy: corporate government church polity? Worked out great for the RCC didn’t it (if we’re simply going by example). Synodalism? Then who holds them accountable?

It wasn’t the apple on the tree that got us in trouble, it was the pair on the ground. It’s not the model that’s the problem, it’s selfish backslidden preachers and deacons. There is no “system” of governing that is going to make any church official anymore accountable no matter how many [unscriptural] checks and balances you put in place. If those in authority are not willing to enforce what is already there, bringing in ISO 9000 isn’t going to improve the environment.

If a police officer sits on the side of the road and watches 1000 people speed by at 100 m.p.h. in a 35 zone and they all crash, is it the speed limits fault? Should there be tougher laws on speeding? Or should the officer be expected to do his job. Yeah, yeah, the officer has someone over him to make him do his job, but what if they don’t make him do his job? Well then by all means, we must make laws to make city officials who wont do their jobs in making officers do theirs “have more accountability”. But then the lawmakers all want to go golfing, so the law doesn’t get passed because they don’t care either. Now what?

In the independent church, if the pastor gets out of line, the deacon board and the church fire him, if the church member is out of line, they get the boot, if the deacon goes full retard, the pastor gives him a ticket to Elsewhere. Ultimately, they are accountable to God for their service. That may not be suitable for those who think that the model of an independent church leads to abuse, but that’s the biblical set up.

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully. 1 Timothy 1:8

The model of the indepenent church is good, if the leaders execute their office lawfully.

If the pastor himself is not to be a “lord over God’s heritage” (I Peter 5:3), then what makes anyone think it’s biblical to make some other governing body a lord over the pastor?

[DrJamesAch] In the independent church, if the pastor gets out of line, the deacon board and the church fire him, if the church member is out of line, they get the boot, if the deacon goes full retard, the pastor gives him a ticket to Elsewhere.

Accountability is not the same as governing. Scripture commands us to love, honor, teach, bear burdens, rejoice with, weep with, admonish, edify, rebuke, comfort, and exhort one another… these are all elements of being accountable to each other. I’m accountable to many people in my life for various reasons, but not all of them are in positions of ‘governing’.

Pastors are not another species- they are our Christian brothers too. They hold an office with a degree of authority, but that office has qualifications and particular responsibilities that are to be upheld in order to remain in that office. It certainly shouldn’t remove them from the brethren to the point where they can’t be taught or rebuked or share their own burdens with others and receive comfort and restoration.

Since churches are made of believers, why do we think that churches should be completely independent? Sure- we don’t have the church down the street making decisions about how we conduct our services, or whether or not to have Sunday School during the summer, or should we use hymnals or PowerPoint. But on matters of sound doctrine, morality, ethics- when does that become nobody’s business?

Accountability doesn’t mean we have to go to extremes of corporate church gov’t- what we should be able to do is address issues as they come up with churches in our neighborhoods and sphere of influence, and work toward sound doctrine and practice, and restoration if need be.

I think part of the problem with separation is that restoration is seldom the purpose or goal. Separation should not be allowed to become a tool of manipulation for vindictive power-mongers. Too many are calling for separation over the mote (pants, movies, CCM) while leaving the beam (dishonesty, greed, gluttony, anger) intact.