Baptist Church Governance and Authority

SOUTHWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY HAVARD SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY CHURCH GOVERNANCE AND AUTHORITY A TERM PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. J. LAING FOR THE DEGREE REQUIREMENTS OF A MASTER OF DIVINITY SYSTH 4453: SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II BY JACOB PORTER APRIL 11, 2005 INTRODUCTION When Martin Luther stood up against the corruption of the Catholic Church, teaching salvation by grace through faith and translating the Bible into a language for the common man, the great Reformation began. Those who stood against and protested the longtime teachings from Rome became known as Protestants. Within this new body of Christians, many groups formed around common doctrine. The inevitable result of giving interpretive authority to all believers, as opposed to centralizing theological study in the Vatican, was the formation of opposing views of particular doctrines. One such doctrine, ecclesiology, caused another break from Protestantism. Some Christians were beginning to understand the nature of the church as being composed only of true believers who observe the ordinances and obey Christ’s commands. In an effort to find a “pure church,” Puritans dissented from the Church of England. From there, the Separatists withdrew into independent congregations. The early Baptists then went farther by adopting the belief in believer’s baptism, which became their defining conviction. A search for a pure church, then, is perhaps the best way to explain the origin of the Baptist faith.1 Ecclesiology is a rich and beautiful doctrine that runs through the pages of the New Testament. Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church beautifully describes the unity and diversity of the church as the Body of Christ. Peter writes about the church as the new priesthood of God, holy and royal, who declares the praises of the One who freed them from bondage and made them a people. In his letters to the church at Corinth, Paul reminds believers that together they are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Such truths about the nature of the church are agreed upon by most Christians, regardless of denomination. However, the Bible is not always so clear in matters of ecclesiology. The manner in which a church is to be governed is widely debated across and within 1 H.L. McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987), 75. 1 denominational lines. A variety of governmental structures are found within churches.2 In the episcopal form of government, authority resides in a bishop (episkopos). The degree of hierarchy varies. Methodists have only one level of bishops; Roman Catholics have several levels which lead up to a supreme pontiff, the bishop of Rome, who is the pope. Some who affirm this system of authority claim that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, themselves, having their power transferred by the laying on of hands in ordination.3 Arguments for the episcopalian government begin with the declaration that Christ is the founder of the church, and that He provided it with an authoritative system of rule. He was given all power (Matthew 28:18) and then appointed apostles who were to go out in His authority (Matthew 28:19-20). Later, these same men appointed other men, such as Titus and Timothy, to carry on leadership of the church. Another argument for this system is the claim that James’ position in the Jerusalem church was very near that held by bishops.4 The Presbyterian form of government is another system held by Christian denominations, namely, the Presbyterian Church of American, Presbyterian Church (USA), and many Reformed churches. In this system, authority is understood to belong to individual believers who in turn delegate that authority to officeholders, called elders, who represent them. Apart from this delegation, divine authority does not function.5 At the local church level, decisions are made the local elder group, called a session. From this group, another group is formed by one lay elder from each session and all the ministers of the area. This body is called a presbytery, and has governing authority over the churches in its area. Next, a group called a synod is made up of an 2 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 1080-94. Steven B. Cowan and Paul E. Engle, eds., “Episcopalianism.” In Who Runs the Church? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 24. 4 Erickson, Christian Theology, 1084. 5 Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. In Book of Order, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Office of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1967). 3 2 equal number of lay elders and ministers chosen from the various presbyteries. Finally, delegates from each presbytery, both lay elders and ministers, forms the General Assembly, which is the ultimate place for the formation of rules and interpretation of doctrine.6 One major distinction of the presbyterian form of government from the episcopal form is the absence of levels within the clergy.7 Also, in this system, a deliberate effort is made to coordinate participation from both laity and clergy in authoritative bodies.8 Strong biblical argument can be made to support this system of government. These begin by pointing to the ruling of Jewish synagogues by a group of elders in the Old Testament, then showing that the Christian church initially functioned within the synagogues. The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 is believed to be an example of a presbytery in action.9 As a striking contrast to the two structures discussed above, some groups, like the Quakers and Plymouth Brethren, reject any concrete form or authority. This nongovernmental methodology emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit influencing believers in a direct fashion rather than through any organization. When a gathering of believers must make a congregation, no vote is taken. Instead, believers wait until they agree upon a direction given by the Spirit.10 During their search for the pure church, the Baptist forefathers rejected all of the above systems of church government in favor of another—congregationalism. Evaluated below in greater detail, this system of church rule, they felt, would best preserve the purity of the church. This concept of democratic rule within autonomous local church came about before the great national democracies of today. The concept was radical to its core.11 Because of the prevalence 6 Erickson, Christian Theology, 1086-87. Charles Hodge, The Church and Its Polity (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1879), 119. 8 Erickson, Christian Theology, 1087. 9 Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman, eds., “The Presbytery-Led Church.” In Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004), 94. 10 Erickson, Christian Theology, 1093. 11 Veli-Matti Karkkainen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2002), 61. 7 3 of democracy today, it is easy for Baptists to take for granted the nature of their polity and the motivations that led their predecessors to establish such a practice as congregationalism. After a thorough examination of the nature of congregationalism in many modern Baptist churches, it would serve Baptists well to examine the proximity of their polity to Biblical teaching and their own heritage. DISTINCTIVES OF BAPTIST POLITY Baptists have always been a diverse people. Throughout the history of the denomination, the particulars of some doctrinal issues have varied.12 This being said, some matters have been held as distinctive to the Baptist faith and have not changed. These include the autonomy of the local church, the two offices of the church (though the particular understanding of these offices may vary), regenerate church membership, and congregationalism. Local Church Autonomy To say that a local church is autonomous is to proclaim it independent, self-governing, and free from external power that can require particular action or beliefs.13 Biblical support for autonomy comes from a reading of the New Testament that sees primacy on the local church, especially in the book of Acts and the epistles. The only medium through which ministry is conducted in the New Testament is the local church.14 Both missions (Acts 13:1-3) and charity (Acts 14:25-28) come from local churches. There is no mention of any specific structure that supersedes the local church, nor is there any direct command for local churches to unite. No outside individuals or organizations had control over local churches. The apostles had great influence over the formation of newly planted churches, but even in these instances they were 12 Mark Devers, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 229. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1089. 14 Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 345. 13 4 only making recommendations. Paul, himself, had to defend his authority as an apostles and ask his readers to heed his teaching (Galatians 1:11-24).15 However, autonomy does not necessitate isolationism among local congregations. Acts 11:28-30; Romans 15:25-26; and 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 provide examples of local churches cooperating together. Though evidence of local church cooperation is plentiful in the New Testament, there is never any indication of this being compulsory or creating a body that had authority over the individual congregations.16 Offices of the Church Two offices exist within the church: pastor and deacon. In the scriptures, the office of pastor is called by many names—elders, overseers, and bishops. “Pastor” (poimhn) is actually the title used least, found only in Ephesians 4:11.17 Here Paul lists “apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers.” However, though that noun is used only once, its related verb which means “to act as a shepherd/pastor” (poimainw) is applied to the Ephesian elders when they are told to “shepherd the church of God.” This is also done by Peter in 1 Peter 5:2. Another term used for this same office is bishop or overseer (episkopos), depending on the translation. In Acts 20:17, Paul calls the elders of the church at Ephesus to himself. In verse 28 of that chapter, he tells this same group that they are overseers. The same interchange of terminology occurs in Titus, when Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town (Titus 1:5). In the very next sentence, Paul continues talking about this task but refers to the office as that of overseer (Titus 1:7). Scripture describes elders as having a role of leadership within their respective local churches, often expressed as “ruling” (Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Peter 5:2-5). Hebrews 15 Erickson, Christian Theology, 1089. Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 346. 17 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 913. 16 5 13:17, though it does not directly mention elders, does imply some official church leadership. Since the New Testament describes no other office as having this kind of authority, it is reasonable to conclude that the writer of this Hebrews passage is referring to local church elders. Other verses seem to hone the scope of this ruling authority to spiritual matters. In Titus 1:9, Paul presents that one responsibility of elders is to protect the church from false doctrine. Evidence for this charge is supported in finding that one qualification for holding the office of elder is the ability to teach (Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 3:2, 5:17; Titus 1:9). Another responsibility of the elders seems to be modeling Christ-like behavior to the church (1 Peter 5:3).18 In 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, Paul taught that those who “lead in the Lord” (presumably elders) have the charge of “admonishing” (rebuke for the sake of correction) those who are going astray.19 This disciplinary role could also be the application of language describe elders as those who “watch over the souls” of church members (Hebrews 13:17). Finally, James assigns to elders the task of praying for those who are sick (James 5:14). The second office of the church is deacon, which is a transliteration of the Greek word meaning servant (diakonos). Indications in scripture of the function of this office are vague at best. One clear point is that the New Testament writers considered deacons distinct from elders. In Philippians 1:1, Paul writes, “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons.” When giving lists of qualifications for church officers, Paul clearly distinguishes elders from deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13). Though it is not conclusive, many believe that Acts 6 describes the inception of the deacon office.20 From this passage the qualifications listed for deacon, one may venture to extrapolate the function of the office. In Acts 6, the apostles found themselves at a crossroads and forced to make a choice. A 18 Gene Getz, Elders and Leaders (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003), 193. Ibid., 196. 20 W. T. Conner, Christian Doctrine (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1937), 264. 19 6 problem was arising within the congregation and needed attention. Namely, one group of widows was claiming to be treated unfairly in the daily distribution of food. For the apostles to attend to this problem would require them to “not preach the word” for some time (Acts 6:2). They summoned the whole assembly and told the believers to choose seven men “of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom” from among themselves to be appointed to the duty (6:3). By doing so, the apostles were able to continue devoting themselves to prayer and the word (6:4). The last firm number given for the church at that time was 5,000 men (4:4). Since that time, Luke reports, “Believers were added to the Lord in increasing numbers—crowds of both men and women” (5:14). Obviously, these seven appointed men did not physically attend to their task on their own. Rather, they must have administrated the service to meet the needs of the church. This concept of administering ministries that meet physical needs within the church seems to connect with the qualifications for deacons. They cannot be “greedy for money” (1 Timothy 3:8), and they must be good household managers (1 Timothy 3:12). Perhaps they were entrusted with financial responsibilities as they carried out ministry to the church’s physical needs. Just as elders provide for the spiritual care of the church, deacons provide for the practical needs through administration, maintenance, and physical care of the church.21 Another proposal is that deacons are chosen by the congregation to fulfill whatever ministries are delegated to them by the elders.22 Regenerate Church Membership Many trace the beginnings of the Baptists faith to seventeenth century England and an 21 22 Mark Devers, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 231. Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 200:282. 7 effort to restore a “believers’ church.”23 To do so, membership in the church had to be voluntary. One could not be born into a church simply because his or her parents were members. Therefore, it became required that to belong to a Baptist church, one must be deliberate and conscious in doing so. Membership was restricted to those who are both believers and disciples. This is necessary if the church is composed only of those who have been baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), and if the Holy Spirit only indwells those who are saved. The symbol of this inward, spiritual baptism is submission to physical baptism.24 Such was the pattern of the New Testament church: “So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them” (Acts 2:41). The early Baptists thus rejected the idea of infant baptism and restricted participation in the ordinance to those who had shown themselves to be believers in Christ and who desired to join the local church in a covenant relationship. In most Baptist churches today, one can join in one of the following ways:25 (1) by profession of faith and baptism; (2) by transfer of letter from another Baptist church; (3) on statement of faith, applied in those times when a person comes from another Baptist church but cannot secure a letter of transfer for an acceptable reason; (4) joining by relation, applied to those who are joining from another Christian denomination. Congregationalism The need for regenerate church membership is directly related to the congregational polity of Baptist churches. If a church’s prescribed mode of decision-making and discerning the will of Christ is a vote of its membership, then those who cast votes must have a relationship 23 Walter B. Shurden, ed., The Church, Proclaiming the Baptist Vision (Macon, Georgia: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1996), 6. 24 H. E. Dana, A Manual of Ecclesiology (Kansas City, KS: Central Seminary Press, 1941), 138. 25 Ibid., 143-44. 8 with Christ through the Holy Spirit. Baptists hold to the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, which is the belief that all Christians are able to read and interpret scripture by the Spirit who lives within them (1 Corinthians 2). Congregational church government is also present in the New Testament record.26 Three passages from the book of Acts are particularly helpful in the argument for congregationalism. In Acts 6:3, the whole assembly was given the authority to choose the Seven from among themselves. The record of the first mission beyond the Jewish people begins in Acts 13. Verse 2-3 says that “they” (referring to the local church mentioned in verse 1) were led to set apart Barnabas and Saul, fast, pray, and send them out on mission. Finally, Acts 15:22 teaches that the whole church was involved in the important decision-making process of the Jerusalem Council. Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5; and 2 Corinthians 2 all deal with church discipline and give ultimate authority for discipline (and excommunication) to the congregation. Perhaps one of the best arguments for congregationalism, as well as one most overlooked, is the addressing of so many epistles to the church as a whole rather than to church leadership alone. BAPTIST POLITY TODAY: SINGLE-ELDER CONGREGATIONALISM Currently, the most common form of congregationalism in Baptist churches today is single-elder government.27 In this system, a local congregation has autonomy over all matters. It elects its own pastor and appoints its own deacons. The amount of authority vested in the pastor varies from one church to another, and usually the deacons serve only with advisory authority. This leaves the majority of decisions to be made by congregation. A. H. Strong articulates the argument for this system well in his Systematic Theology.28 26 Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman, eds., “The Congregation-Led Church.” In Perspectives on Church Government (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2004), 158-72. 27 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 928. 28 A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907), 914-17. 9 He begins by making a case that the New Testament pattern of a plurality of elders in each church was not required, but was simply the result of the size of churches at that time. Strong points out that no uniform number of elders was given for the churches, and believes that additional elders amount the assistant pastors of larger churches today. It is significant to note that Strong does, however, limit the office of elder to those in vocational ministry to the exclusion of lay persons in the church. Strong also points out that some passages of scripture have “bishop” in the singular but “deacons” in the plural (1 Timothy 3:2, 8). He proposes that James was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem, citing Acts 12:17; 21:18; and Galatians 2:12. Finally, Strong interprets “the angel of the church” in Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, and 14, as being the pastor of those churches. And if this is correct, then each church had a single pastor.29 Another argument given in favor of single-elder government involves the evolution of the church over time. In its beginning, one might argue, the church met in many homes throughout cities rather than in specific meeting places like churches have today. Because of the fractured nature of the church, more elders were required. Because today Christians are able to meet together under one roof and are not confined to their homes because of persecution, one elder is sufficient.30 AN EVALUATION OF TODAY’S BAPTIST POLITY Baptists are a people with a rich heritage of faith and doctrine, particularly in their understanding of the church (as demonstrated above). However, with careful examination of scripture and Baptist heritage, questions arise as to the faithfulness of Baptist to both the Word of God and the tradition of their forefathers. Misunderstandings regarding the role of church 29 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 929. Chad Owen Brand and R. Standton Norman, eds., “The Single-Elder-Led Church.” In Perspectives on Church Government (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2004), 57. 30 10 officers and the nature of membership threaten the security of the congregational model of church government. Misunderstanding the Office of Deacon Many Baptist churches do not have a body of officers called “elders,” but the deacon body functions similarly to how elders would, advising the church with great authoritative weight. Some deacon bodies function as a corporate board that has been given decision-making authority from the congregation. Several problems with such practices exist. First, this confuses the biblical terminology of the New Testament. The scriptures never refer to deacons as having any degree of ruling authority.31 Their very origin, recorded in Acts 6, indicates a purpose that lies in serving the church in practical ways. They were to keep the unity of the congregation by meeting physical, material needs of members, both individually and corporately. Even if a deacon body is meeting these specific needs, it should not also be functioning as a ruling body. The New Testament seems to go to great lengths to separate these two functions (spiritual leadership and practical service). Their qualifications are listed separately (1 Timothy 3:1-14). They are addressed separately (Philippians 1:1). A possible reason for this distinction is discussed below. Finally, there is no indication in scripture that deacons should serve for life. The ministry of a deacon is active and requires both time and ability. To expect one man to be in such a position to carry out the work of a deacon for the rest of his life is unfair to both that man and to the congregation who he serves. 31 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 920. 11 Misunderstanding the Office of Elder As opposed to the single-elder model of church government described above and practiced in most Baptist churches today, the most simple and clear reading of the Bible indicates a plurality of elders serving in local churches.32 Acts 14:23 speaks of appointing “elders for them in every church.” The church at Ephesus, planted by Paul, had elders (Acts 20:17). Paul trained those who followed him set up the same system. Titus is instructed to “appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). Timothy was reminded by Paul of when “the elders laid their hands” upon him (1 Timothy 4:14). Paul is not alone in his witness to the plurality of elders. James writes, “Is anyone among you sick? He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). James wrote this letter to believers who were scattered abroad in many churches. This is significant because it indicates that he expected that all these churches would have a plurality of elders within them. The same could be said of 1 Peter 5:1-2, in which Peter writes to a number of local churches, “So I exhort the elders among you...” The church in Jerusalem had elders (Acts 11:30; 15:2). Although in the New Testament the elders were often appointed by men who held the unique office of apostle, it seems that as the local congregations matured appointment was by the church itself.33 Because ultimate authority rests in the hands of the congregation, elders are accountable to the congregation. In the plural elder system, the “senior pastor” of today’s churches is a member of the elder body. He is not superior to the other elders, nor are they to him. Rather, he may exercise authority as a “first among equals” due to his unique role of labouring in the full-time work of preaching and teaching (1 Timothy 5:17). 32 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 912. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Doctrines, rev. John F. Walwoord, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1926; reprint, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1974), 268 (page citations are to the reprint edition). 33 12 Though all members of the church have equal voice in governance, the Bible clearly teaches that God gifts some to lead (Romans 12:8). From the New Testament witness, it seems that these elders are the body of leaders, given their authority by the congregation who willingly submits to them (Hebrews 12:17; 1 Peter 5:2-5). The nature of this leadership seems to be spiritual. The elders are responsible for caring for the souls of the congregation, protecting the flock from false doctrine through both reproof and teaching. The history of the church and the Baptist faith also stand in favor of plural elders. One of the earliest documents looking into the life of the church is called the Didache. Dating back to the end of the first of beginning of the second century, the document was so highly esteemed that some church fathers considered it almost canonical.34 In one section, instruction is given to a congregation about the election of church leadership: Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men that are gentle and not covetous, true men and approved; for they minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Therefore despise them not; for these are they that are honored of you with the prophets and teachers.35 Many Baptists of long ago also preached the biblical soundness of a plural eldership in the local church. Not the least of these was W. B. Johnson, the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention. He believed the following points to be taught clearly in scripture: (1) That each local church has a plurality of elders who have authority in the government of the flock; (2) That no legislative power was placed in the hands of these elders, but only executive power to minister and lead the flock; (3) That the Holy Spirit made them overseers with the responsibility of providing spiritual food to the flock, watch for their souls, and supervision of the whole body 34 35 Brand, “The Single-Elder-Led Church.” In Perspectives on Church Government, 39. Ibid. 13 and its affairs.36 Johnson explains the tension between congregational authority and the authority of the elders when he writes, “The spiritual overseer governs the church, not by the laws which he or the members pass, but by those, which the chief Shepherd and Bishop establishes.”37 In another place, Johnson explains, “Such a body would constitute the proper council of advisers to the church collectively, and to the members individually.”38 Another important Baptist figure who espoused the plural elder system of government is Charles Spurgeon. In 1869, his church had 26 elders who had been nominated by the elder body and approved by the congregation. Their duties ranged from overseeing missionary and church planting efforts to inquiring about absentee members and candidates for membership.39 In the discussion above regarding the emphatic distinction between deacons and elders in the New Testament, it is said that deacons serve by meeting the practical needs of the church while elders meet the practical needs. In Acts 6, the first deacons are created for the purpose of serving physical bread while the apostles serve the bread of life through the ministry of the Word. This is a picture of the intent God has to see all the needs of His people met in the church. One group nurtures the soul, the other nurtures the body. This leads to a relationally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically healthy congregation who is able to carry out the commission of Christ. By having two distinct groups manage these distinct ministries, God ensures that neither is neglected. Misunderstanding Church Membership Most Baptist churches today still allow only those who profess Christ as Savior and Lord 36 W. B. Johnson, The Gospel Developed. In Polity, ed. Mark Dever (United States of America: IX Marks Ministries, 2001), 190-91. 37 Ibid., 195. 38 Ibid., 193. 39 Gregory A. Wills, “The ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon: unity, orthodoxy, and denominational identity,” Baptist History and Heritage (Summer-Fall 1999). 14 and have been baptized to become a member. However, one need not look any farther than the official membership roles of most local churches—with lists of resident and non-resident, active and in-active members—to see the blatant departure from both the Biblical understanding of church membership and the historic conviction regarding membership that was so important to the founders of the Baptist faith. It should be noted first that the recording of lists of names is a relatively new practice within the church. Prior to the reformation, nearly all of Europe was considered “Christian” and a part of the church. After the Reformation, lists began to be kept so that ministers would know who to admit to the Lord’s Table for communion.40 Referring to the disciples of Christ as “members” actually occurs rarely in the New Testament, and when it does occur, it is not in the sense that the term is used today. One place the term is used is 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, where Paul describe disciples not as “members of the First Church of Corinth,” but as members of the Body of Christ. Employing the term in this figurative language communicates something much more profound and consequential than its alternative. In this text, Paul teaches that all parts of the Body are needed and indispensable. None are inferior to the others. All members of the body function together rather than independently. If one part is injured, the whole body suffers. Princeton Theological Seminary professor, Alan Neely comments on these verses: To be a member of Christ’s body in the first century, that is, to be a part of the church, the Apostle declared, one had to have and maintain a vital, living connection to Christ. No less imperative, one had to have and maintain a living, unified, working relationship with other body parts or members.41 40 Alan Neely, “Church Membership.” In The Church, Proclaiming the Baptist Vision, ed. Walter B. Shurden (Macon, Georgia: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1996), 41-42. 41 Ibid., 43. 15 The New Testament gives no indication that people who distance themselves from the fellowship of believers for a long period of time would still be considered a part of the early church. Yet so many churches today allow names to remain on their “membership roles” despite years of absence. In order for a body part to remain alive, it must be attached to the body. The New Testament clearly teaches the communal nature of the Christian life (Acts 2:41ff). The scriptures also teach that the church is supposed to exercise discipline as an act of love toward members who are living in sin. Matthew 18:1-17 teaches that a sinning brother should first be confronted one on one, then in a small group. If small groups don’t work, eventually the brother should be brought before the whole church. If the brother does not repent, he is to be treated as an unbeliever (who obviously would not be a member of the church). In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul tells the church at Corinth to excommunicate a member involved in terrible sin (5:4-5, 13). This is to be done for the good of the one loosed (5:5), for the purity of the church (5:6-7). Later, in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11, it appears that one who was excommunicated has responded to the discipline as is to be accepted again into the local fellowship. Paul writes that “the punishment by the majority [of the congregation] is sufficient” (2:6). Few churches obey the scripture and exercise discipline of their members. As a result, they are filled with the same pride that infected the Corinthian church as Paul scolded them in 1 Corinthians 5:2. The lack of discipline and lax expectation of members is harmful to Christians, both individually and corporately. Historically, Baptist churches not only required belief and baptism for membership, but also a covenant relationship between the member and the local body that involved Christian character and conduct, as well as loyal service to the ministries of the assembly.42 Some churches developed a practice called Renewal Month, which occurred for four weeks every three years. During these weeks, all membership records of the church are 42 Dana, A Manual of Ecclesiology, 142. 16 erased, and every member is required to give serious thought and reflection to his or her commitment to Christ and the church. A special book is placed in the sanctuary, clean and empty. If it is their desire, people may come to the church and write their name in the book to signify their renewed commitment. This is also the action that puts them back on the role of members.43 Such a practice—honest, straightforward, and nonjudgmental—might be found useful in any congregation who sees they have abandoned the Baptist priority of maintaining a pure church that can function congregationally to determine the will of their shared Lord. Other practices, such as renewing the use of covenants, might also be helpful. Virtually all early Baptist theologians believed in the exercise of church discipline and a high standard for membership. Johnson wrote in 1846, “The gospel is a system of purity, and therefore requires its subjects to be holy and obedient to righteous authority. The churches are required, therefore, to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly…”44 It seems the practice of discipline was withdrawn as churches began to reflect a culture that values individualism above the good of the community. CONCLUSION Baptist churches have a rich history of biblical ecclesiology. The autonomy of local churches, rule of the congregation, acknowledgment of the two church offices, and belief in regenerate church membership are to be treasured as jewels mined from the depths of scripture. However, Baptists should also give a fresh reading to their understanding of particular aspects of church polity. Perhaps in doing so, they will rediscover the structure of the church God intended: a church that meets all the needs of its members, physical and spiritual; a pure congregation that is truly regenerate and seeking to obey the Lord’s will both individually and corporately. By 43 44 Neely, “Church Membership.” In The Church, 47. Johnson, The Gospel Developed. In Polity, 239. 17 beginning such a discussion, Baptists could return their roots and walk in the ways of the giants who went before them: Charles Spurgeon and W. B. Johnson, Paul and Peter. 18 BIBLIOGRAPHY Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. In Book of Order. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Office of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1967. Brand, Chad Owen, and R. Standton Norman, eds. “The Single-Elder-Led Church.” In Perspectives on Church Government. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2004. Brand, Chad Owen, and R. Stanton Norman, eds. “The Congregation-Led Church.” In Perspectives on Church Government. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2004. ________ “The Presbytery-Led Church.” In Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004. Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Major Bible Doctrines, rev. John F. Walwoord, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1926; Reprint, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1974. Conner, W. T. Christian Doctrine. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1937. Cowan, Steven B., and Paul E. Engle, eds. “Episcopalianism.” In Who Runs the Church?. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. Dana, H. E. A Manual of Ecclesiology. Kansas City, KS: Central Seminary Press, 1941. Devers, Mark. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004. Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology, 2d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003. Ferguson, Everett. The Church of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Getz, Gene. Elders and Leaders. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. Hodge, Charles. The Church and Its Polity. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1879. Johnson, W. B. The Gospel Developed. In Polity. Edited by Mark Dever. United States of America: IX Marks Ministries, 2001. Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to Ecclesiology. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2002. Lewis, Gordon, and Bruce Demarest. Integrative Theology. Vol. 200. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. 19 McBeth, H.L. The Baptist Heritage. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987. Neely, Alan. “Church Membership.” In The Church. Proclaiming the Baptist Vision, ed. Walter B. Shurden. Macon, Georgia: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1996. Shurden, Walter B., ed. The Church. Proclaiming the Baptist Vision. Macon, Georgia: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1996. Strong, A. H. Systematic Theology. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907. Wills, Gregory A. “The ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon: unity, orthodoxy, and denominational identity.” Baptist History and Heritage (Summer-Fall 1999). 20