The church is the pillar and ground of the truth - not the pastor!

In Kevin’s mind, a person can teach false doctrine, but at least he has the integrity to do so by the dictates of the church.

Paul never saw this coming:

1 Timothy 1:3

As I urged you when I went to Macedonia, remain in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach other doctrine

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will accumulate teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear something new.

You can’t make this stuff up.

[pvawter]

Where did Kevin say anything about the church sanctioning false teaching?

[James K]

In Kevin’s mind, a person can teach false doctrine, but at least he has the integrity to do so by the dictates of the church.

You can’t make this stuff up.

James K “made this stuff up”

It is important to think through the implications of congregationalism. Kevin somewhat has (or worse, fully has) and is okay with it. If a congregation wanted to recognize infant baptism (a false doctrine), then the pastor should be a good little hired hand and preach within those confines that the church ordered. The hired hand will perpetuate false doctrine, but at least he will have his integrity according to Kevin.

James,

You misunderstand and misrepresent congregationalism. If we flip your application, the elders can decide to preach a false doctrine, the the congregation should be good little sheepies and submit within the confines that the church leadership ordered. The dictators will perpetuate false doctrine, but at least the congregation can hold their heads high that they didn’t rebel against their leaders.

Of course, this is no more true of your system than the tripe you are pushing about congregationalists. If the elders in your church structure colluded to accept false doctrine, you would advise the members of that church to confront the error and then leave if it couldn’t be corrected. The same is true congregationally. If the congregation chooses to move in a new direction doctrinally, the pastor(s) confronts the error and then leaves if it cannot be corrected. The implications you decry are just as possible and plausible in either system. As Jim said, you’re making this stuff up.

Chip, has Kevin argued multiple times that the church congregation is the final authority on choosing its own officers and setting the parameters of doctrine? Has he also argued that the pastor must preach within those confines to be a man of integrity?

So here is a Exhibit A:

Congregational church chooses its new pastor. Church is KJVO. Pastor is KJVO. Pastor reads Kevin’s book on bible versions and no longer is KJVO.

What would you tell the pastor to do at this point? What would you tell the pastor to do in both cases of church acceptance or rejection of his belief?

So here is a Exhibit A:

Congregational church chooses its new pastor. Church is KJVO. Pastor is KJVO. Pastor reads Kevin’s book on bible versions and no longer is KJVO.

What would you tell the pastor to do at this point? What would you tell the pastor to do in both cases of church acceptance or rejection of his belief?

James,

No congregationalist is going to tell Pastor X not to begin teaching on and addressing the issue; KJVO (which I’m interpreting here as KJV-Inspired and not just KJV Preferred) would be aberrant doctrine and heresy. It would demand a response by the Pastor/Shepherd of the congregation.

Congregationalism is not a form of government that makes a pastor the slave to the ‘mob’ where a simple majority drive all decisions. You can be a congregationalist in ecclesiology without buying into the fiction that some present.

Agreed that it is aberrant theology. The pastor sees the light though in this example. What would you recommend he do, since he is now in conflict with the church?

[James K]

Agreed that it is aberrant theology. The pastor sees the light though in this example. What would you recommend he do, since he is now in conflict with the church?

Chip, who are the leaders in the church he should meet with in your understanding (presumably not other pastors). Is there room in your congregationalism to have another layer between the pastors and the nonpastors to help oversee doctrinal matters?

Is there a NT example, precept, or command for pastor to leave the church like that and not carry out his God ordained responsibilities of teaching right doctrine?

Since now I have been accused of not understanding congregationalism, I would like to know the scriptural basis for how this all works itself out.

Chip, who are the leaders in the church he should meet with in your understanding (presumably not other pastors). Is there room in your congregationalism to have another layer between the pastors and the nonpastors to help oversee doctrinal matters?

You mean the Deacons and Elders from I Timothy 3? Yep, we’ve got them too :)

We have one pastor at our church, and we have a team of deacons/elders to assist him; we operate on a first among equals principle - anyone who is an elder has the same exact standing as the pastor. They make decisions jointly and then, if necessary, address or inform the congregation of the needs/issues. The congregation almost always unanimously approves what the deacons/elders request or say, but there’s no coercion. When there have been major mistakes by the board(s), they go before the church, explain what happened and why, and inform the church. Differences of opinion and practice are addressed and resolved privately, as per Romans 12:18, or, if necessary, Matthew 18. All of these people are all re-evaluated each year by the congregation to ensure that they are living according to the biblical principles outlined in the Pastoral epistles.

When I mentioned Romans 12:14-18 in the other thread, it’s because I’ve seen it practiced for over 5 years. We’ve never had a major issue in the time that I’ve been there, and we’ve worked through both issues with the congregation by the elders and issues with deacons/elders by the congregation - I was a part of one of the conversations. If a deacon/elder does run into issues, we ask them to take a leave of absence while they work out the issue. We always push for and hope for resolution in any case unless the sin is clear and flagrant - then we have to move into a church discipline mode. There are times in the past where the church has disciplined and removed deacons or even elders, but that was a very rare situation where there were no other choices.

This is a very well written piece, and very much needed. I hope it will be widely read. Thanks Dr. Bauder!

[James K]

Chip, who are the leaders in the church he should meet with in your understanding (presumably not other pastors). Is there room in your congregationalism to have another layer between the pastors and the nonpastors to help oversee doctrinal matters?

Is there a NT example, precept, or command for pastor to leave the church like that and not carry out his God ordained responsibilities of teaching right doctrine?

Since now I have been accused of not understanding congregationalism, I would like to know the scriptural basis for how this all works itself out.

Officially, the leadership would include the elders, not the deacons, from my perspective. Unofficially, you will also have influential people in the church who probably should be involved in a discussion like this as well even though they have no official capacity other than their membership.

Jay, I don’t see anywhere that Deacons have leadership roles. I don’t see anywhere the first among equals principle. I don’t see anywhere that the position of elder or deacon is up for a yearly evaluation by the congregation. To put this bluntly, just how much of yours and my ecclessiology not even in the NT and are our solutions to these problems undercutting the rightful place of scriptural authority? It is a serious matter to consider.