Thursday, March 27, 2014

SBC Elders, excommunications, and the marginalizing of women

I served three wonderful, quite traditional SBC churches in my 30 years as a pastor. These churches had a pastor, deacons, committees (later "teams"), the usual, typical organization. Deacons both served and provided some degree of leadership and guidance. Women were more faithful in attendance and did most of the work. Nothing unusual about that.

No church I ever served, nor have supplied in since retirement, has had elders. But having elders is the administrative structure du jour in Southern Baptist life, especially among our younger brethren. Fine, pastor-elder-overseer, are all biblical, as is deacon.

So, why am I always reading about certain things follow along with a church that moves from a traditional pastor and deacon polity to an elder model?

Consider the following scenario:

A church has a pastor and deacons. A move is made to rename the pastor as an elder and allow him to have a few selected, perhaps congregationally approved, fellow elders. Deacons are made irrelevant, dispensed with, or restricted to very strict ministry tasks absent any leadership role. Soon after the change, various church members are excommunicated, excluded from membership. Also, the roles of women in the church are severely restricted.

A good change? Bad change? Neutral? Take your pick.

The church I have in mind is the nationally known Westboro Baptist Church, the "God-hates-fags" church whose leader Fred Phelps was excommunicated shortly before he died. The churches regular spokesperson was his daughter who, after the elder change, dropped from high visibility.

If elders are useful for Westboro, can they be similarly employed in SBC churches?

Object to the comparison? I'm just reporting and connecting dots here. For all the talk about how spiritual, biblical, helpful, and superior an elder form of governance is, what I often see is a power grab by the pastor and a few cronies accompanied by an almost inevitable marginalization of women in the church.

Any SBC church that has a move towards elder leadership ought to get intense scrutiny from membership with both of these in mind. If it is merely a change in vocabulary, then fine, I'm probably on board but the devil is in the details and I would put those under a magnifying glass. My experience, certainly anecdotal, puts me in the position of being instantly suspicious of any pastor whose leadership in this area moves in this direction.

My advice to church members is this: Raise both eyebrows and see that both ears perk up when your pastor brings up any change that involves elders.

My advice to church search committees is this: You cannot afford not to bring up and thoroughly discuss with any prospective pastor the matter of elders. While doing so, at least one committee member needs to be educated enough on the issue so as not to be either finessed or bulldozed by the candidate.

Avoid a lot of grief, brethren/sistren, by paying attention here.





5 comments:

dr. james willingham said...

Dear William: I was listed as an elder about 40 some-odd years ago, and the church that so-listed me was the same that excommunicated me. As to the eldership it is biblical and can serve a useful purpose. Churches can and do kill preachers, wearing them out with over work and stress (from wedding to a funeral to a counseling session). Elders must be servants and humble in spirit instead of lording it over the flock as Peter says in I Pet.5. The final authority as to decision making for earthly saints is not the elders; it is the church. Our Lord said in Mt.18, take it to the church,the ekklesia. To provide the pastor with study time, the elders can make visits, etc. He can't make every visit. In fact, a church of 250-400 members can kill a preacher. A fellow in Missouri pastored such a church. One day he had a heart attack from the stress, and was gone. One in North Carolina, who is retired, told our Son that he had made a mistake in trying to do too much; it ruined his health.

The re-introduction of church discipline demands a careful practice. We do need it as the reputation of the church is ruined by members who do evil. The ending of church discipline was planned by forces outside of the SBC, I think, as well as some within. I noticed that the practice began to cease in the 20s and 30s in differing states. Once begun things went down hill for our nation. One church back in the 1800s took about 10 years expelling a man for drunkenness. A little too careful, perhaps.

Finally as to marginalizing women, you are right here. The problem is our Conservatives have a reactology and stead of a theology of feminity; they are reacting to radical feminism. Thank God, I was able eventually to get beyond that and beyond misunderstandings brought on by faulty understandings of the Bible's teaching on the subject. Part of this was due to Complementarians taking advantage of their wives' suserviency - even to the point of abuse. It is easy to overlook the reality that the Bible teaches a functional complementarianism. Even John Piper inadvertently gave away the show, when he admitted that in the absence of his father (away on revivals), his mother spoke with all the authority of a man.

Moreover, our own Baptist History cautions us about putting women in subjection.I read a paper to the Historical Committee and celebrants of the 230th Anniversary of the Jersey Baptist Church in North Carolina (where John Gano had pastored) on the subject of "The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses." The having of such servants in the church who exhorted the congregation was a practice of the Sandy Creek Baptist Church and Association. We speak not of Gano and the Regular Baptists, but of the Separate Baptists of that Association. I tried to reconstruct the case for the practice. The records having been burned, when a clerk's house had burned, it was necessary to study the Puritan Congregational writers of the Congregational in Shubal Stearns' background. Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. III, especially on I Tim.2:11-15,suggested the answer. The writer said, I suffer not, etc., "except she be a specially called, gifted, and endowed person like" (this is from memory) listing the noted women of the Bible.

dr. james willingham said...

Dear William: I was listed as an elder about 40 some-odd years ago, and the church that so-listed me was the same that excommunicated me. As to the eldership it is biblical and can serve a useful purpose. Churches can and do kill preachers, wearing them out with over work and stress (from wedding to a funeral to a counseling session). Elders must be servants and humble in spirit instead of lording it over the flock as Peter says in I Pet.5. The final authority as to decision making for earthly saints is not the elders; it is the church. Our Lord said in Mt.18, take it to the church,the ekklesia. To provide the pastor with study time, the elders can make visits, etc. He can't make every visit. In fact, a church of 250-400 members can kill a preacher. A fellow in Missouri pastored such a church. One day he had a heart attack from the stress, and was gone. One in North Carolina, who is retired, told our Son that he had made a mistake in trying to do too much; it ruined his health.

The re-introduction of church discipline demands a careful practice. We do need it as the reputation of the church is ruined by members who do evil. The ending of church discipline was planned by forces outside of the SBC, I think, as well as some within. I noticed that the practice began to cease in the 20s and 30s in differing states. Once begun things went down hill for our nation. One church back in the 1800s took about 10 years expelling a man for drunkenness. A little too careful, perhaps.

Finally as to marginalizing women, you are right here. The problem is our Conservatives have a reactology and stead of a theology of feminity; they are reacting to radical feminism. Thank God, I was able eventually to get beyond that and beyond misunderstandings brought on by faulty understandings of the Bible's teaching on the subject. Part of this was due to Complementarians taking advantage of their wives' suserviency - even to the point of abuse. It is easy to overlook the reality that the Bible teaches a functional complementarianism. Even John Piper inadvertently gave away the show, when he admitted that in the absence of his father (away on revivals), his mother spoke with all the authority of a man.

Moreover, our own Baptist History cautions us about putting women in subjection.I read a paper to the Historical Committee and celebrants of the 230th Anniversary of the Jersey Baptist Church in North Carolina (where John Gano had pastored) on the subject of "The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses." The having of such servants in the church who exhorted the congregation was a practice of the Sandy Creek Baptist Church and Association. We speak not of Gano and the Regular Baptists, but of the Separate Baptists of that Association. I tried to reconstruct the case for the practice. The records having been burned, when a clerk's house had burned, it was necessary to study the Puritan Congregational writers of the Congregational in Shubal Stearns' background. Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. III, especially on I Tim.2:11-15,suggested the answer. The writer said, I suffer not, etc., "except she be a specially called, gifted, and endowed person like" (this is from memory) listing the noted women of the Bible.

William Thornton said...

"Eldresses" is a word not yet utilized in Southern Baptist life, James. Thanks for the comment.

Anonymous said...

A subtext of the blog post appears to be the Calvinizing of the SBC and how it would marginalize women. I do not dispute what you write has happened and may continue to occur, yet I will add that it already has happened and is still happening in SBC churches that do not incorporate said organizational practice. As a matter of record and policy (i.e., BFM), SBC marginalizes women. There is no honor in being able to say, “well, we don’t do ‘it’ as much or as severe as others. “ If given the latter, CBF churches might take note, too, but not for their values, which are more women-friendly, but for their record of calling women to senior positions of pastoral leadership.

Lee said...

I believe both Peter and Paul use the term "elder," "bishop" and "pastor" interchangeably in their New Testament works. Whether officially designated as such, or informally included in service, every church has "elders" who do the work of the ministry, along with the pastor, who is also an elder.

Baptist churches are, for the most part, congregational, which I believe is a Biblical model for leadership and governance. Elders are individuals who do the work of preaching and teaching, while the deacons do the work of ministry and service. The pastor is an elder, whether a church needs any more, vocational or voluntary, they determine. But an elder board is not intended to be a decision making body vested with power that the congregation should have.

Since joining a Christian and Missionary Alliance church, I've observed how the elders operate. Basically, it is very similar to the way most deacons operate in SBC churches. They provide counsel and leadership, help the pastor with the various ministries of the church, and in our church, fill the pulpit in the pastor's absence. Most of them teach in the discipleship ministry. I have seen some instances where an elder got a bit on the authoritative side, and caused a problem. BTW, we also have deacons and deaconesses who administer benevolence and other service ministries.

The polity of all Alliance churches is a blend of elder leadership and congregational authority, and I don't see that the role of women is diminished in any way. Alliance churches don't "ordain" elders or pastors, though there are requirements for being presented to a church as a pastoral candidate, or as an elder, and as a rule, women do not serve in those capacities. But there are plenty of women involved in the church ministry.