Drippings from the Honeycomb
More to be desired are [the rules of the Lord] than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. (Psalm 19:10)
3.4- to respect and submit to the spiritual authority and procedures of the Church, including its Elders, as expressed in the Handbook; This article is especially difficult for our anti-institutional age where nothing can be trusted, nothing is true and there is no higher authority than self.
However, Christ is the Head of the Church and has vested Her, and by extension Her leaders, with authority (c.f. Great Commission). However, it is not a self-serving top-down authority but an inverted pyramid. Whereas the Church is not to be an institution that is to be served but to serve (Mk 10:45), so too its leaders aren’t to be served but to serve. Authority is the right to do something. Christ exercises authority on earth through His local bodies or congregations. We represent His holiness, proclaim Him and do all He has called us to do in mission, etc. To help enable this, Christ, through His local body in prayer, appoints men who fulfil biblical qualifications to teach, lead, administer the ordinances, discipline, etc. We are called to respect the Church, as Christ’s representative body on earth, and also Her officers, as representatives of the local body. Insofar as they and the Church follow Scripture, we are to follow their/Her lead, respect what they say, help them, seek their counsel, etc. The Church is God’s gift to mankind and so too are leaders a gift to the Church. Neither are unaccountable either. Churches are accountable to Christ and His Word and other local bodies. Leaders too are accountable to their congregations, even as we follow their biblical example. (This balance is called Elders’ Led Congregationalism, Handbook 13.1[1]). In the Bible respect and submission, rightly understood, are good virtues. To show disregard for Christ’s Church and Her Officers is to disregard Christ Himself, preferring pride to humility. We also humble ourselves to all that God has said in His Word, not just leadership, but other matters of governance. Our Handbook is meant to be an accessible document that reflects the precepts and principles of Scripture we believe are in Scripture and which binds our community life together (both when we agree with a decision and when we don’t). Just as a skeleton without flesh is lifeless, so too a flesh without bones is useless. The body of Christ has bones (structure) and flesh (Spirit). When we follow God’s way, things go better for us. It is also in those difficult moments, where something is tested, when there is pushback, when there is legal challenge, that we become very grateful for agreed upon processes in our Handbook under which we all agree to love and serve the Lord. [1] Congregationalism, in its extreme, means the whole congregation must decide on every little detail. This is paralyzing. Presbyterianism (Elders’ led), in its extreme, along with other forms of singular hierarchies, can lead to abuses in leadership (not to mention the body not being involved, only the head). An Elders’ led Congregationalism is a better reflection of what we see in Scripture. Here, Christ is the Head of the body who appoints leaders who lead it, as they engage with the members of the body, and yet which retains responsibility for significant matters. Have Baptists ever had elders?
In recent times most Baptists have held the pastor-deacon model (where deacons were essentially mini-elders but also had to serve as deacons). The trend towards having elders has gained popularity in recent years as Baptists re-evaluate their polity in light of Scripture. Post-Christianity is helpfully seeing a reformation and reformation in leadership leads to renewal. Initially both English and Scottish Baptists had multiple elders. This is true of the first English General as well as Particular Baptists and well documented in the stories of early Baptists/congregational histories. The Scotch Baptists were the most devout to this practice. In England either due to the want of leaders or the impression (persecution) of the Anglican priestly system, most Baptists adopted an Elder-Deacons model (later this mirrored the city church as a corporation model from the late Victorian period, which increasingly saw the pastor as the CEO). Nevertheless, all early 'pastors' in Upper Canada/Canada West/Ontario held the title 'Elder' and many congregations had a plurality of them or they worked together with congregations as a plurality of missionaries. A professionalization of the clergy in the late nineteenth century also did much to strengthen the solo-pastor model (not that training for elders, or lead elders, is a bad thing). Amongst American Baptists W. B. Johnson advocated for a plurality (1846) while J.M. Pendleton (1867) believed one elder could suffice. In our post-Christian era an increasing number of Baptist churches around the world, especially the UK (sometimes through Presbyterian or Brethren influences) and USA (e.g. 9 Marks), have led the way in returning to a biblical model of plurality. While many denominations have solitary church offices (Catholic and Anglican Priests, Pentecostal Pastors or even Baptists Ministers), the Bible speaks of the office of elder/overseer/shepherd (pastor), which are synonymous (c.f. 1 Pet 5:1–2), as being plural. For example, 1 Pet 5:1 is addressed to the ‘elders’ and Paul installed ‘elders’ in his missions (Acts 14:23) and wrote to the ‘overseers and deacons’ (Phil 1:1). Even Clement of Rome, considered an early Pope by Catholics, spoke of overseers in his letter to the Corinthians (e.g. 1 Clement 42). While there would of necessity always be an elder who acted as a ‘first among equals’ (c.f. Lk 8:41- the synagogue ruler), there was a plural team of elders. This all followed an ancient pattern going back to Moses, the Sanhedrin and the synagogues.
So why in God’s wisdom did He will a plurality of elders. There are at least 6 simple reasons. Perhaps you can think of more:
Further Reading: Jeramie Rinne, Church Elders: How to Shepherd God’s People like Jesus. (9 Marks) Externals If we surveyed ‘Baptists’ merely externally it would be very difficult to answer this question. Some reach to tradition to create an common denominator acrostic of historic Baptist beliefs to answer this question (e.g. baptism, autonomy of local church, priesthood of all believers, etc). Those who claim the mantle differ so widely (and wildly) in their belief and practice (e.g. Arminian & Reformed, liberal and conservative, open and closed communion, conventional and societal, etc) that at minimum we might define Baptist as a loose movement of visible Christians who embrace baptism by immersion (‘believer’ cannot always be assumed because of liberalism). Such tradition or man centred approaches fail to strike at the heart of Baptist identity. For this we must turn to the plumb line of God’s truth and the Baptistic convictions that men and women have derived from it. Internals There are three types of Baptists. Those who are born into Baptist families, those who attend a Baptist church out of expedience and those who are Baptists by conviction.[1] The latter is the only type to be for we don’t want to base our lives on the traditions of men but the doctrines of God (Mk 7:7). What does the Bible teach? In 1812 three Congregationalist missionaries, Adoniram & Ann Judson and Luther Rice, set off for India. They knew they would meet William Carey and the other Baptist missionaries there. They had to defend infant baptism and so studied their Greek New Testaments. It is a great danger studying the Bible for they were all convinced of believer’s baptism by immersion! Upon disembarking they were all baptized. The Christian denomination called Baptist arose during the English Reformation, a time of religious tumult when people were trying to search the Scriptures (sola scriptura) and rediscover NT Christianity. What was the faith and practice of the early Church? Baptists emerged as a reform movement. Baptist historian David Bebbington puts it this way: “They adopted the same principles of punctilious loyalty to God’s word, of passionate desire to worship the Almighty correctly, and of willingness to restructure the church in accordance with God’s precepts. Their biblical, liturgical, and ecclesiastical priorities drove them through Puritan loyalties into separatism and, eventually, to the further step of repudiating infant baptism. Baptists were the people who took Reformation principles to their ultimate conclusion.”[2] Baptist belief and practice flow from the Bible and the Gospel (sola fide) to form their identity: [1] M. Haykin et al, The Baptist Story (2015), 325‒26. [2]D. Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries (2010), 23‒24.  A BAPTIST: A believer in the biblical Gospel, who has been baptized by immersion as the New Covenant sign and has covenanted together with an autonomous local church under its officers and the Lordship of Christ to fulfil their place in the body; who participate in the Lord’s Supper; who seek to live a holy life for Christ’s sake/God’s glory in accordance with the Word and by the Spirit; and to make the name of Christ known. Secondarily Baptists believe in religious liberty (no one can be forced to believe) and separation of church and state (the Kingdom of God is not the kingdom of this world) because of Scripture and their experience. Summary One of the most famous Baptists, Charles H. Spurgeon, grew up in a godly Congregationalist family. He was converted in a Primitive Methodist Chapel. Soon after he became a Baptist. The following is his recollection of a conversation with his mother: My mother said to me, one day, “Ah, Charles! I often prayed the Lord to make you a Christian, but I never asked that you might become a Baptist.” I could not resist the temptation to reply, “Ah, mother! the Lord has answered your prayer with His usual bounty, and given you exceeding abundantly above what you asked or thought." Baptists do not hold a monopoly on salvation but are convicted as to the biblical nature of their central beliefs and practices. The name does not matter but rather standing for what one believes the Bible teaches. 
|
|||
