W.B. Johnson was the first President of the Southern Baptist Convention which was founded in 1845. In 1846 he wrote this after quoting a specific passage of scripture, which I failed to write down for my post, and was recorded in an article that I discovered written by an Internet friend in a research paper on the subject of ordination. The following is that statement..with some of my explanation enclosed. Johnson said..
“In a review of these Scriptures, we have these points clearly made:
1. That over each church of Christ [local church belonging to Christ, not a denomination] in the apostolic age, a plurality of rulers was ordained who were designated by the terms elder, bishop, overseer, pastor, with authority in the government of the flock.
2. That this authority involved NO [emphasis mine] legislative [to enact rules/guidelines] power or right, but that it was ministerial [serving] and executive [oversight] only, and that, in its exercise, the elders were not to lord it over God's heritage, but as examples to lead the flock to the performance of duty ...
3. That these elders were all equal in rank [position] and authority, no one having a preeminence over the rest. This satisfactorily appears from the fact that the same qualifications were required of all, so that though some labored in word and doctrine, and others did not, the distinction between them WAS NOT IN RANK, but in THE CHARACTER OF THEIR SERVICE..[Emphasis mine.]
4. That the members of the flock were encouraged to follow and imitate the faith of their elders, with due consideration [watching with knowledge] of the end of their conversation, [The way they lived] for Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever...” [End of Dr, Johnson's statement.]
It is obvious to me that Southern Baptist people/churches, as a whole, have sure departed from the description of Church leadership taught by the first President of the Convention from his view of scripture.
It is apparent that Dr. W. B. Johnson believed there was no such thing as a one man pastoral role. Just as apparent is the fact that he believed there was no dictatorial authority vested in an "office" of "Pastor." We can even safely say that the idea of "do not question the authority [Pastor] God has placed over you" was foreign to his understanding of scripture. Otherwise there would be no reason to "Watch the way they lived" before imitating [following] them.
He [Johnson] DID believe the leaders of a fellowship were to be respected and followed [willingly] with an eye to testing their walk as believers. But there was no blind mindless sheep following a Shepherd BECAUSE he is the Pastor in Johnson's way of understanding the scriptural ministry of pastor.
I would add that the qualifications for that ministry had nothing to do with degrees, seminaries, or training. The qualifications were of character and conduct not sheepskins signed by a Seminary President. I have one of those but it has nothing to do with biblical qualifications for the ministry of Pastor/Elder or whether or not I'm qualified to pastor a fellowship.
I think all of you are aware that my view of Pastors/Elders or any biblical subject for that matter is held BECAUSE I believe I see it in scripture and NOT because some SBC leader, past or present, says it a certain way or culture wants it a certain way. Some of my friends see those same scriptures differently by the way. But that's the joy of our walk. The possibility of being wrong in our understanding but knowing that one day we will ALL fully and correctly understand.
It is interesting, however, to hear the views of a man who was with the SBC from it's beginning and to see how we've changed. Perhaps NOT for the better.
Paul B
15 comments:
In my boyhood native Carolina tongue... this shore is a "good un"
I am curious Paul... in your opinion does compensation help or hinder this perspective?
Rodney,
You ask a very, very good question.
You and I both know compensation doesn't have to hinder in general. But I think it can sometimes. This said with the full knowledge and disclosure that I was paid for forty years as a pastor.
It CAN hinder by some in the congregation using it as a control thing. ["After all we pay your salary so you'll do/preach/not preach what we want."]
It CAN hinder by some pastors being fearful of loss and tip- toeing around the truth so as not to offend.
It CAN hinder by being used as a point of measuring success thus becoming a god to whomever it is doing the measuring. [We pay him too much. You don't pay me enough.]
It CAN hinder by insulating the pastors from experiencing the real world where it takes a lot of time to provide for a family and church programs often hinder that proper management of time.
But on the other hand...
It Can help by freeing up the teaching elder to spend more time in study of and prayer over the the text of the scriptures that are being taught the body.
It CAN free up some to be WITH the congregation in times of crises and emergencies that might be difficult otherwise.
It CAN provide all the opportunity to share as a body so the teaching elder can be able to provide for his family a little more adequately.
But you asked specifically about the concept of the post and whether compensation would help or hinder that and I can only say that it PROBABLY would hinder what I REALLY believe the biblical model pf church-life to be. That said, I'm aware of the monster we've created and it would take a miracle of revival or some great catastrophy for things to change. I believe either one could happen, and soon.
And now (in the good fashion of recent Southern Baptist debate):
"Yeah, well, he also believed slavery was okay, so he obviously couldn't read his Bible and probably wasn't even Christian. That other belief definitely means he is wrong here too."
(Tongue is now removed from cheek)
Chris,
You've nailed the prevailing logic used in debate these days. That's for sure.
That said, to be honest, I WOULD want to check the good Dr. Johnson out a little more carefully about things.
[Sarcasm alert] But he said what I already believe so I automatically give him the benefit of any doubt.
[Just the other side of the coin in that debate right!!]
Paul,
It's good to read some sanity, or maybe, good Biblical commonsense, regarding leadership in Baptist congregations.
The Baptist disease which appears to infect the SBC is as seriously prevalent in the similar Baptist denominations in most of the world.
It appears that the severity by which leaders themselves are affected,is self inflicted,even though they need to purchase much larger, and more costly hats to compensate.
Whilst mostly agreeing with W.B.J., I, personally, would moderate his position a little further.
Yours article remind me of a couple of visits I made to the USA, a few years ago, to a Baptist church in the USA (not SBC), which in my opinion, was more akin to a Presbaptorthocatholic cult. The Pastor's (note the upper case 'P') word was excathedra, the elders genuflected to him, and the congregation to them.
As I spoke with the members of the congregation, I asked what they thought about certain Scriptures: NOT ONE person had an answer other than, "The Pastor says....)! The same applies regarding their church practice.
I trust that no one I have ever taught will answer questions that way. I want to hear people who have been taught to read the Scriptures for themselves and answer as good Bereans would, being convinced in their own minds about what Scripture says, NOT what the pastor says that it says.
It has been my practice for half a century to tell congregations, "If you believe what I teach, without checking it out for yourselves, you are fools!"
If I was correct in saying that, today, the implications are clear,as a major blog controversy rages on.
Rodney,
Does your saying, “this shore is a "good un", mean you agree with the views of Johnson?
Are his views the same as the paper you gave our church?
“The pastor must be able to appoint the chairman of deacons, finance, and personnel because they become his executive committee.” “Now a wise pastor will seek input from his leadership team [executive committee] about any direction he believes God is leading the church. But, ultimately he must lead.”
Why did our church and deacons not know there would be a vote on selecting a staff member at the last business meeting?
Yea, I know, I know, Paul, but it’s hard not to say something sometimes.
Aussie J,
You said..."I trust that no one I have ever taught will answer questions that way. I want to hear people who have been taught to read the Scriptures for themselves and answer as good Bereans would, being convinced in their own minds about what Scripture says, NOT what the pastor says that it says."
I could not agree more.
I have a good friend, [Now with the Lord] Manley Beasley, who used to say.."Good bible teaching raises as many questions as it gives answers." His idea was our teaching ought to leave people searching the scriptures for themselves.
Rex,
My concern is always the spirit in which something is said as much as the words spoken.
Your next to the last paragraph comes close to being a specific church issue that is not for a public blog. [My blog at least.] I would appreciate you being aware of that. Thanks.
Paul,
You said, “It is obvious to me that Southern Baptist people/churches, as a whole, have sure departed from the description of Church leadership taught by the first President of the Convention from his view of scripture.”
I believe that was partly brought about by the ‘hero’ of fundamentalists, W.A. Criswell, stating the pastor was to be the ruler of the church.
Paul, do you think these statements depart from Johnson’s view of scripture?
“God gives pastoral leadership the vision which in turn must be communicated to the congregation.”
“A pastor is a shepherd leader that dictates direction, creates structure, and oversees organization.”
“The pastor must have the ability to hire and fire staff.”
Ah yes…no specific issues. Sometimes I feel like the guy who forgot his initial objective was to drain the swamp/stay in the right spirit, when he was waist deep in alligators.
Rex,
I sense a need to set the perimeters of my response.
This is only one person's opinion. [Mine]
WBJ is not the FINAL word on anything.
A local congregation can choose any method they desire to function.
That said..in answer to your question do I think that these statements depart from Johnson's view of scripture?...
“God gives pastoral leadership the vision which in turn must be communicated to the congregation.”
I would think, having read a good deal that Johnson has written, that this statement would NOT depart from Johnson much at all, if any.
“A pastor is a shepherd leader that dictates direction, creates structure, and oversees organization.”
I would say that Johnson would probably change the word "dictate" to the word "gives" and then say it holds to the spirit of his view of leadership. [We can ask him one day.]
“The pastor must have the ability to hire and fire staff.”
I think this statement is pragmatic, rather than scriptural, since "staff" as we know and use it didn't exist in the early Church era. I don't know how Johnson would address that.
I have had it both ways..the Church finds/calls/hires staff..the Pastor finds/calls/hires staff. The Church ALWAYS had the final word as to pay, but, in some situations over my ministry, I was given the privilage of FINDING who I wanted to be on saff.
Which is best? I can't say. Which is right? There is no right/wrong since the scriptures are silent. Which is biblical? Neither. Which fits the point of my post? Neither.
Which do I like? If I were in an plurality of elders situation in a Church, [I have been] it wouldn't matter which I liked. If I'm Senior Pastor [I have been] it makes it easier on me for the second to be in place.
Which is, in fact, in place in a Church is a thing for the Church to decide. But I wouldn't want anyone to question my spirituality because of holding a particular view on it as I would want to refrain from questioning the spirituality of someone who might disagree with me.
Paul,
In discussing, “God gives pastoral leadership the vision which in turn must be communicated to the congregation”;
you said you thought this would not depart from Johnson’s view of scripture.
I believe the statement tells the way the congregation gets a vision from God is through the leadership of the pastor.
It may be argued the statement doesn’t mean what it says; but that’s what the statement says.
I believe the vision ‘coming from the pastor’ is in violation of the ‘priesthood of the believer’ because the statement makes the pastor the ‘middle man’ between God and man.
That combination is like the words of Ignatius: “We should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself”; and the words of Criswell: “The pastor is the ruler of the church.”
Paul,
You said, “The Church ALWAYS had the final word as to pay.”
In my opinion that’s good, but my next question would be, were you given authority to give pay raises to your staff?
If you were, I would think the staff person would be more incline to ‘please’ you than ‘please’ the church. I mean by that the person might feel you had more ‘control’ over them.
With that in mind, another statement in question: “The pastor should evaluate performance [of staff] and be able to offer merit raises based on that performance.”
I agree with changing “dictate” to “gives” because Webster defines ‘dictator’ as “One who dictates.”
Rex,
You said.."you [Paul] said you thought this would not depart from Johnson’s view of scripture. I believe the statement tells the way the congregation gets a vision from God is through the leadership of the pastor. It may be argued the statement doesn’t mean what it says; but that’s what the statement says.
I believe the vision ‘coming from the pastor’ is in violation of the ‘priesthood of the believer’ because the statement makes the pastor the ‘middle man’ between God and man."
I stand by my assessment that the statement does not depart from what Johnson would say/believe as I understand him. You and Johnson might be differing a bit on this it is obvious. But I haven't stated where I stand on that particular statement at all.
I will state what I think about your statement here..."I believe the vision ‘coming from the pastor’ is in violation of the ‘priesthood of the believer’ because the statement makes the pastor the ‘middle man’ between God and man."..[Notice it doesn't say "only through the pastor" in the original statement.]
I personally believe whatever gift one is to the congegation, we ARE that gift to equip the body with whatever our giftedness entails and the body DOES NOT lose ANY priesthood status in following a gifted one.
The one who is a gift of teacher to the body...will be heard and appreciated as a teacher. [Without the body giving up any priesthood status in doing so.]
The one who is a gift of encourager to the body will be heard and appreciated as an encourager. [Without the body giving up any priesthood status in doing so.]
The one who is a gift of deacon [server] will be heard and appreciated as a deacon. [Without the body giving up any priesthood status in doing so.]
Likewise, the one/ones who is/are a gift of pastor/elder/bishop will be heard and appreciated as a pastor [shepherd] or elder [leadership which helps in direction because of age or experience] or bishop. [overseer] All this WITHOUT the body giving up any priesthood status in doing so.
All this also without Lording it over anyone or being rejected by anyone.
We are all middle men/women in some fashion in the Body of Christ as the body is different in giftedness. [Not ALL are feet or hands or eyes or ears, but all are needed by all the others.]
By the way Rex, with this... "That combination is like the words of Ignatius: “We should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself”; and the words of Criswell: “The pastor is the ruler of the church.”...I would say that I am about as far apart from Brother Ignatius and Brother Criswell as I could possibly be.
Rex,
I think with this I would like to move on to discussing some scriptural aspect of leadership/giftedness if you don't mind. The "pay" of staff [who,what,when] are things the scripture is silent on. [With the exception that those who labor in the word are worthy of double portions..whatever you hold that to mean.]
I would say let the Church speak, however it chooses to do that, on the pay of anyone and all follow that unified voice. Even if one were to lose their view of it to the majority.
Paul,
I appreciate the time and depth of thought in your replies. You’re correct the statement does NOT say ‘only’, and I agree whole hardly the preacher receives God’s message as we all do by the Holy Spirit.
I’ve tried to find truth my whole life, and maybe trying to expose untruth gets me labeled sometimes as a trouble maker. I think too often the messenger gets shot.
I asked the original question: (“Does your saying, “this shore is a "good un", mean you agree with the views of Johnson?”) because I believed the comment hid an untruth.
Maybe my question has not been read, but if it has, the silence is an answer within itself.
Paul I believe you’re at a disadvantage in calling ‘balls and strikes’ as I think I’m behind the catcher while you’re in the bleachers. (I’ve heard the Criswell statement.)
I believe also it’s time to move on the bigger things. Rodney and I both enjoyed and were saddened by your wife’s blog, but I believe God’s opportunity is when Christians are out of their comfort zone.
Post a Comment