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.
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.