 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Rethinking Baptistic DecorumAs a "free and faithful" Baptist, I affirm the historic Baptist convictions in the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local church. This first facet of Baptist life basically means that I, and other Baptists like myself, maintain that as individuals created in God's very image and as regenerate Christians--endowed with the Holy Spirit--individuals are free, under Christ's lordship, to make decisions before God without external interferences. The second principle avers that local churches are free, again under Christ's lordship, to order worship, elect and ordain officers/ministers (regardless of sex!) and enter into relationships with the church catholic for the purposes of missions, social justice and evangelization.Even though I am a postmodern-recovering-evangelical-repentant-fundamentalist-kind-of- Baptist, I still genuflect to these basic principles of Baptist identity. I am, however, unconvinced how these principles relate to matters of decorum within congregational polity. Said another way, the tenants of Baptist identity recounted above typically are translated in matters of church government (polity) to the notion that every member of an autonomous Baptist congregation has the opportunity to express her opinion and to vote on matters of community significance. I have been a part of Baptist churches in the past where this opinion is carried out ad absurdum. We even had to vote one time on changing the toner supplier for the copying machine! Conversely, if church conferences and business meetings are so wonderful, then why do committees and ministers often go out of their way to minimize the full brunt of congregational opinions (especially dissenting ones)? What I mean is that smart pastors quickly realize that anytime one assembles a group of autonomous individuals who are extremely proud of both their autonomy and individuality, it behooves said minister to play a bit of politics before the church actually votes on anything. In fact, I can't remember a time since I discovered how to play Baptist politics that my church has ever made a tabula rasa decision about anything. Typically, key people who yield church-wide influence are 'set loose' to use their influence to get the church to agree with the recommendation of the committee or pastor. How, then, is this any different from presbyterian polity? Similarly, sometimes church conferences are held at such a time and date that the least number of people will be present. In super-small print on the back of a bulletin one might read of a church-wide conference next Wednesday night (a service that typically is sparsely attended). This is either done to bolster attendance at the Wednesday night prayer meeting, or, more likely, it is designed to mitigate the likelihood that dissenters will show up to 'influence' the votes' outcome. Here is my question: does the priesthood of the believer and autonomy of the local church necessitate congregational polity? P.S. It seems to me that if we still want to maintain these historic Baptist convictions and congregational polity is the best expression of these convictions, then ministers, church officers and committee members should go out of their way to make sure that everybody gets a vote. We would want to open the opportunities for God's Spirit to communicate with our particular congregation. Hmmmm? posted by Jake at 10/05/2005 02:35:00 PM  
4 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts My Saturday Church ------------ And all God's People Said? ------------ Ordination Fragen ------------ Old School/New School Community ------------ And So it Begins ------------ The Search to Belong ------------ Costa Rica ------------ Emergent Leaders respond to Critics ------------ Emergent Convention 05 ------------ Henry vs. Frei (Introduction) ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
Q: does the priesthood of the believer and autonomy of the local church necessitate congregational polity?
Great Question Jake!
Isn't it odd that congregational churches produce both vote-on-everything forms and senior-pastor-rules forms? Maybe that is the clearest expression of local church autonomy: that it may choose to put one person at the helm. hmmmm
I am not sure if congregational polity is a necessary conclusion either. And it has been quite frustrating for me to watch from the pews. I am not ready to move on yet, however. Too many committees annoy me and place the average congregant far from the actual life of the church.
The direction I would take is the curtailment of destructive interference between congregational polity and American political life. Make every congregational vote either unanimous or inconclusive and most of the "realpolitik" would end.
Get radical or get reformed, eh?
i get your frustration here. The church I went too at GWU did their meeting right before the sunday morning service..yep, right before launching into worship, we voted on a new tractor.
Of course, I also remember in my old church the potential hiring of a youth minister. It was controversial b/c he handnt been to seminary. All the youth, who never went to business meetings, all showed up and barely voted him in..of course this made everyone real happy..
now, it is interesting that at the bigger baptist church in columbia where my membership currently lies, they are very presyb at this point. they only vote on new ministers, budget and buildings..seems to quell conflict but, does it also silence a lot of voices?
Im with you that we need to embrace, although maybe reimagine a little, the autonomy of the local church and congregational polity. It is very scary to me that a presybtery actually owns the land that a local church is on and in theory just take it away. The whole defrocking thing also has its issues. (Oppopnets of Baptist policy would point out their scared of lack of accountability)
This fear of lack of accountability however, seems often familiar. It sounds like many who are concerned with the possibility of relativism in pomo and thus talk about the need for boundaries. We must have some boundaries they say..And so many would say about baptist churches, ..there must be some accountability.. thats seem to be what im hearing from SBC leadership..
however, why not allow the church community, associational, state, national and international (why the BWA is important), to serve as that boundary?
and on the everyone getting a voice deal..i think you're right and perhaps the rise of the internet and connectivity will enhance this process??
these are tough questions..ill be dang interested to watch and learn from how yall sort them out together in a church start..
good questions and thoughts.