Excommunicated At Last!

[Timsings]

. . .BTW Tim, I notice that some churches are now requiring new members to sign a covenant, basically agreeing to support the pastor and leadership. It's a document that could define you right out of the church for non-support if the powers that be want you out. Does it bother you that the congregations are ceding power and authority to a small group of people? Not just delegating, but giving it up.

It is my opinion that American Christianity is in a period of transition that may or may not be connected to the shift from modernism to postmodernism. The outcome is still in doubt. Part of that transition is a redefinition of authority. Couple that with the trend in SBC churches and other ostensibly conservative and/or fundamentalist churches toward a view of the pastor-as-ruler or pastor-as-CEO, and you see the potential problem.

Pastors who advocate this stance don't want their congregants nosing around what they are doing. There may be nothing wrong with what they are doing, but when they view congregational involvement as nuisance that they have to put up with, then they have a very low view of their congregation. As a baptist, I see that as a problem.

To me the situation you are asking about is analogous to a head of government (e. g., the President) who asks his cabinet members for undated letters of resignation when they are first hired. The letters are filed until they are needed.

Congregations who give up power and authority to their pastors and to leadership teams that the pastors choose are showing how serious is the problem of congregational ignorance of Baptist heritage. These congregations are ripe for the picking for pastors who want to keep them in the dark about their heritage so that the pastors can go about doing what they want to do without the interference of their church members.

To see how much of a problem this is, consider how many churches are making it into the news because the members have sued, or are threatening to sue, because they have questions about how the church is spending its money. The members want to know what the budget is because, up to now, they have not known. They want to know what salaries are, how much the church is taking in, etc.

So, to give a short answer to your question after all this preamble, YES!, I think this arrangement is a serious problem. It's like a land mine that gets overlooked for years. Then when you've forgotten all about it, it blows up in someone's face.

As of yesterday (Sunday) my church has been without a pastor for a year. We are in the midst of a search and have gotten to the point where members of the search committee have begun to visit potential candidates to hear them preach. Our church is run by committees. The members are chosen by the church. Committees set their own agendas, and they present their recommendations to the church in monthly business meetings. Personnel, financial, and facilities, issues have to go through the deacons before they can be sent to whole congregation. Because of this arrangement, our church has functioned very well in the last year because we are not dependent on the pastor and a leadership team.

I am not suggesting that every church should be run this way. Every church has to work out the arrangements and procedures that work best for them. The important thing is that each church needs to be aware of the potential shortcomings of the arrangements and procedures that they select. Being a Baptist church is not easy. It takes a lot of involvement and a lot of work. Our retired pastor once said that your dedication to the church might be measured in terms of your capacity to be bored (sitting in numerous meetings). We always laughed when he said that, but we didn't laugh very much because there is an element of truth in what he said.

Tim Reynolds

 

[ROBERTGUWAPO]

:laugh: But rather, the question for me to face is, will I thrive in a church that doesn't allow non-KJV bibles, doesn't tolerate postrib teachings, and thinks that Conservative Baptist churches are heretic (they expelled an associate pastor for being a guest speaker in our church)?

By the way, their former Rev. Umandap is a relative of my mother-in-law. :thumbs:

I think they will. I knew the pastor there, not personally, but by reputation. I understood he had the respect of even non Calvinist pastors.

However, the question is will you thrive in a Calvinist church, having been exposed for years to the non-Calvinist foundations ?

 

[pinoybaptist]

:laugh: But rather, the question for me to face is, will I thrive in a church that doesn't allow non-KJV bibles, doesn't tolerate postrib teachings, and thinks that Conservative Baptist churches are heretic (they expelled an associate pastor for being a guest speaker in our church)?

By the way, their former Rev. Umandap is a relative of my mother-in-law. :thumbs:

oh, yeah, that. I forgot they were KJV only people. Well, I guess you could go to other churches. There are a lot of them in the Lagro-Novaliches-Commonwealth Avenue area, I think.

I used to be KJVO myself until I became a Doctrine of Grace adherent, then I realized God's people have been redeemed by Christ long before the KJV came on the scene, you know what I mean ?

I think to insist on KJV only, over KJV preferred, is to be a little daft in the head, and rather strange for a Calvinist church.

 

[Tom Butler]

Congregations who give up power and authority to their pastors and to leadership teams that the pastors choose are showing how serious is the problem of congregational ignorance of Baptist heritage. These congregations are ripe for the picking for pastors who want to keep them in the dark about their heritage so that the pastors can go about doing what they want to do without the interference of their church members.

To see how much of a problem this is, consider how many churches are making it into the news because the members have sued, or are threatening to sue, because they have questions about how the church is spending its money. The members want to know what the budget is because, up to now, they have not known. They want to know what salaries are, how much the church is taking in, etc.

So, to give a short answer to your question after all this preamble, YES!, I think this arrangement is a serious problem. It's like a land mine that gets overlooked for years. Then when you've forgotten all about it, it blows up in someone's face.
Tim Reynolds

Tim, thanks for your insights. IMO, they're on the money. Congregational government can get bulky at times, but transparency and accountability will take a church--and the pastor--a long way.

I don't want to detract from the OP issue raised by RobertGuwapo, but I think this issue and his are related. Maybe this could be grist for discussion in a separate thread.