I am a simple person. That would make me a simple Baptist would it not. It may be that in this day it is my simplicity that could cause my downfall in relation to present day Southern Baptist life as opposed to what I've experienced in my history with the SBC.
I've always prided myself, in a non-sinful way I hope, in being a non-creedal Southern Baptist. I've viewed the difference between a creed and a confession, which we have utilized for years in the SBC as, simply put, in a creed you have declared what you must believe to be a part of a particular group and in a confession you have declared what you hold to without coercion of any kind. I would have to say that I, as I read one say it, have no creed but Christ and no document of ultimate authority but the Bible. [This is why the sacredness of the text is so important to me.]
I know this will cause some to believe I do not believe anything for sure but, as a Baptist, I have believed the Bible as I have interpreted it under what I believed to be the leadership of the Holy Spirit and have attempted to guard the freedom of EVERY person to interpret scripture, to hear God's voice for themselves, and to obey what he/she hears.
I am now wondering if the words I've just written apply to all Southern Baptists except those under employment to the Convention. If this exception is true, and it is, I find myself wondering when the preceeding words will no longer apply to anyone who calls himself/herself Southern Baptist.
I hear the reasoning going like this. Since employees/missionaries are paid by Southern Baptists our BF@M is a minimal standard for them and they should be required to sign it. OK and I suppose it would have stopped there with no one thinking much about it were it not for the fact that now you have the odd case of the BOT of the IMB going BEYOND the BF@M in a REQUIRED fashion with the baptism and private prayer language thing. ["UUUUMM not so fast my friend, I have an objection to that I'd like to talk about," one said.] It has come out that NAMB did this a while back but it was under the radar so to speak. Thus the following eighteen months of debate.
What we now have is the situation where the President of the IMB would be personally disqualified from being appointed by the very organization he leads. But he can continue to lead since the requirement is not retroactive. Which I guess shows that it is NOT principle upon which it is based, because principle is true for the past, present and future even if we just discover it, but this is based on preference by those who have the authority to decide such matters.
Then the question is asked, if missionaries are required to sign it as a minimal standard why shouldn't Trustees? OK. Then, the argument goes using the same logic, since Southern Baptist money is used to pay these employees/missionaries/trustees [money IS used for expenses for trustees though not salary] shouldn't those who are required to sign it be required to do so without caveats at all? Remember, [according to their logic] if you have caveats you are lying if you say you affirm the BF@M, ie, it must be ALL or NOTHING. [Though "no caveats" has never been the standard until this debate.]
I recall being overseas to Chile, Brazil, and Indonesia for the IMB in the seventies, eighties, and nineties [some after the BF@M signing became a big deal] and I talked with many missionaries who signed, some with caveats, [it was not considered lying in those days remember] many with concerns that what I'm writing about now would, in fact, be a result. [I'm NOW wondering if the same logic will ultimately lead to everyone's identity as Southern Baptist being somehow tied to signing, without caveat, the BF@M, thus completing the shift from confession to creed.]
If this shift is the reason so many are calling for a tiered approach to a confession I can see the significance of the struggle.
But I'm wondering if we are not perhaps struggling more with Southern Baptist identity than we are with Baptist identity. Our Baptist identity has always been the fundamentals of the faith. You can name them. So can I. But our Southern Baptist identity has been shaped by our cooperative efforts at evangelism and missions. It IS our unique cooperative approach to missions that has defined us as a Convention. We are Baptist because of the fundamentals of the faith. We are Southern Baptist because we cooperate with people who DO NOT interpret the scriptures exactly as I do. It is this Southern Baptist identity that is at risk today.
It seems, I say again, seems, we are shifting to a creedal approach to identifying who Southern Baptists are. My simplicity is causing a great deal of struggle in me as to where I will stand if that shift from a cooperative effort to a theological creed is acomplished. As I said, I AM a simple Baptist.
I really like what a life-long friend recently said of himself. "I'm neither a creedal Baptist, nor a conventional Baptist, but I AM a convictional Baptist." May this be so of me and all of my Southern Baptist brothers and sisters as we cooperate with one another out of personal conviction NOT coercion.
I've just reread what I've written about the ongoing debate and I've gotten dizzy headed trying to figure it out. I did confess at the beginning that I'm a simple person. That makes me a simple Baptist and the bottomline is that this simple blogger is struggling with where we are going as Southern Baptists.
Paul Burleson
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Friday, June 01, 2007
FROM THE FILES
Several bloggers have today posted words or thoughts written a year ago just prior to or after the Convention in 2006. I think most of their posts that I've read are good and bore repeating and I wish to do the same. What follows is what was said on this blog one year ago today.
My reasoning is that if something is worth saying one time it probably bears repeating. I've approached preaching with the same philosophy in the past at times.
My honest reasoning is also it will save me a lot of thought and work which reprieve I need after spending the past several days in Austin Texas.
But upon reflection, maybe the first is really the reason. [I don't know...all of this may be nothing more than a classic case of self-justification.] :)
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Essentials and Non-Essentials
What do you do when there is disagreement? I'm not speaking of disagreement over essentials that have to do with those things necessary for salvation or eternity. These certainly include things like knowing how sinful I am [repentance] and resting in how much Jesus loves me and was willing to die in my place and, in light of who He is, believing that completed what was necessary to deal with my sin as evidenced by an empty tomb. [Faith]
Those kinds of things are essential for redemption and eternity whether one is nine or ninety.
I'm speaking of the non-essentials. Not unimportant things, just things not necessary for salvation to be experienced. These might include whether Adam was Federal head and I was present in him when the fall happened or whether I'm lost by my own choice or any combination thereof. Whether Jesus was Impeccable or could have sinned when tempted. Whether election is God choosing me before time because He determined to, or, seeing I would choose Him, chose me because of that foreknowledge.Whether repentance and faith are my responses alone or whether I can repent and believe only because the Holy Spirit has worked regeneration already in me and repentance and faith are the evidences of new birth rather than the causes of new birth.
I have my own understanding. I lean toward [in fact I embrace] God having worked by His Grace and my abilities toward spiritual things are the result of His Grace being experienced not the cause. My point is...I came to all this understanding after I became a believer... not before.
However, the unique disagreement of which I speak is when there are two guys/gals on the same staff who disagree over the non-essentials. How does this work? It has happened ...to me...several times. I developed a certain way [method] of handling it. My way is not sacred and maybe not even the best way. But it is my way and I'll share it for what it's worth.
Two things, I believe, are important. One is each staff person must be free to investigate and research scripture to grow personally in their understanding of the nuances of doctrine without fear AND to teach their understanding. An example of this would be an Education minister on my staff had a different view of divorce and remarriage than mine. I asked him to preach in my absence. We were at a particular place in Matthew where divorce was being addressed. So I asked him to deal with that passage if he would. He was perplexed and even concerned. He saw it differently than did I. "How can I do the that? " was his question. I said, "You teach how you see it and be honest enough to mention that I [Bro. Paul] see it a bit differently but we respect each other as brothers in the Lord." Then I suggested he encourage the people to search on their own. He did and they did.
Interestingly, twenty-five years later, I now hold the position he held then, not because the text has changed but because my understanding of the text has changed as I've studied. That's one of the two important things I wish to mention. We were both free to search and share our understanding of Truth without fear.
The second is when, for whatever reason, it is good to agree as a staff on a non-essential as a standard for the staff, knowing some one will have to adjust to something he/she doesn't hold to personally, be willing to do it for practical reasons. An example of this is I pastored a church near a University where drinking was a problem on campus. We chose as a staff to agree that abstinence would be our [the staff] standard. This was not based on agreement on the text of scripture because there were differences of opinion there. But by mutual consent we felt it was best for us as a staff to do it this way in order to more effectively minister to those students. A couple of people had to defer and abstinence was our practical policy while on staff there.
This was shared with our church. We had no established church policy in regards to abstinence as we had developed our own church covenant and that particular non-essential was not an issue. Drunkenness was a no-no of course, but not the idea of total abstinence. Our adoption of total abstinence was shared as information only. But the congregation learned from all this and was encouraged as they saw the method we followed to come to our agreement on what was best when good people stood on different sides of theological issues that are not essential to salvation and eternity.
I could give a multitude of other examples but post length will not permit.
My bottomline in all this is multiple...
1. People differ on non-essentials.
2. People who differ can work together.
3. No one should have to be quiet about their differences.
4. Respect for another's position is important.
5. When a policy is decided upon because it is best for the work... don't make the basis for it scriptural if there are good people on both sides of the issue theologically. Make it what it is...practical and good for the work.
6. Real unity is based on at least these factors...
1) Agreement on the essentials...
2) A right spirit/attitude toward people who differ on everything else...
3) A willingness to have ALL share their views and, when necessary, choose a path that is best for the work by mutual agreement with all being heard and respected.
I think this might be good for a family or a congregation as well as a staff. [Maybe even a denomination.] I also do not believe this negates teaching the whole counsel of God authoritatively. I happen to believe in authority coming from the annointing of the Holy Spirit rather than a pastoral position because I take seriously the command to not Lord it over the flock.
But, as I said, this practical approach is not sacred [though undergirded by biblical principles] nor perhaps even the best way, but it is mine...and God has, by His grace, blessed it.
Paul Burleson
My reasoning is that if something is worth saying one time it probably bears repeating. I've approached preaching with the same philosophy in the past at times.
My honest reasoning is also it will save me a lot of thought and work which reprieve I need after spending the past several days in Austin Texas.
But upon reflection, maybe the first is really the reason. [I don't know...all of this may be nothing more than a classic case of self-justification.] :)
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Essentials and Non-Essentials
What do you do when there is disagreement? I'm not speaking of disagreement over essentials that have to do with those things necessary for salvation or eternity. These certainly include things like knowing how sinful I am [repentance] and resting in how much Jesus loves me and was willing to die in my place and, in light of who He is, believing that completed what was necessary to deal with my sin as evidenced by an empty tomb. [Faith]
Those kinds of things are essential for redemption and eternity whether one is nine or ninety.
I'm speaking of the non-essentials. Not unimportant things, just things not necessary for salvation to be experienced. These might include whether Adam was Federal head and I was present in him when the fall happened or whether I'm lost by my own choice or any combination thereof. Whether Jesus was Impeccable or could have sinned when tempted. Whether election is God choosing me before time because He determined to, or, seeing I would choose Him, chose me because of that foreknowledge.Whether repentance and faith are my responses alone or whether I can repent and believe only because the Holy Spirit has worked regeneration already in me and repentance and faith are the evidences of new birth rather than the causes of new birth.
I have my own understanding. I lean toward [in fact I embrace] God having worked by His Grace and my abilities toward spiritual things are the result of His Grace being experienced not the cause. My point is...I came to all this understanding after I became a believer... not before.
However, the unique disagreement of which I speak is when there are two guys/gals on the same staff who disagree over the non-essentials. How does this work? It has happened ...to me...several times. I developed a certain way [method] of handling it. My way is not sacred and maybe not even the best way. But it is my way and I'll share it for what it's worth.
Two things, I believe, are important. One is each staff person must be free to investigate and research scripture to grow personally in their understanding of the nuances of doctrine without fear AND to teach their understanding. An example of this would be an Education minister on my staff had a different view of divorce and remarriage than mine. I asked him to preach in my absence. We were at a particular place in Matthew where divorce was being addressed. So I asked him to deal with that passage if he would. He was perplexed and even concerned. He saw it differently than did I. "How can I do the that? " was his question. I said, "You teach how you see it and be honest enough to mention that I [Bro. Paul] see it a bit differently but we respect each other as brothers in the Lord." Then I suggested he encourage the people to search on their own. He did and they did.
Interestingly, twenty-five years later, I now hold the position he held then, not because the text has changed but because my understanding of the text has changed as I've studied. That's one of the two important things I wish to mention. We were both free to search and share our understanding of Truth without fear.
The second is when, for whatever reason, it is good to agree as a staff on a non-essential as a standard for the staff, knowing some one will have to adjust to something he/she doesn't hold to personally, be willing to do it for practical reasons. An example of this is I pastored a church near a University where drinking was a problem on campus. We chose as a staff to agree that abstinence would be our [the staff] standard. This was not based on agreement on the text of scripture because there were differences of opinion there. But by mutual consent we felt it was best for us as a staff to do it this way in order to more effectively minister to those students. A couple of people had to defer and abstinence was our practical policy while on staff there.
This was shared with our church. We had no established church policy in regards to abstinence as we had developed our own church covenant and that particular non-essential was not an issue. Drunkenness was a no-no of course, but not the idea of total abstinence. Our adoption of total abstinence was shared as information only. But the congregation learned from all this and was encouraged as they saw the method we followed to come to our agreement on what was best when good people stood on different sides of theological issues that are not essential to salvation and eternity.
I could give a multitude of other examples but post length will not permit.
My bottomline in all this is multiple...
1. People differ on non-essentials.
2. People who differ can work together.
3. No one should have to be quiet about their differences.
4. Respect for another's position is important.
5. When a policy is decided upon because it is best for the work... don't make the basis for it scriptural if there are good people on both sides of the issue theologically. Make it what it is...practical and good for the work.
6. Real unity is based on at least these factors...
1) Agreement on the essentials...
2) A right spirit/attitude toward people who differ on everything else...
3) A willingness to have ALL share their views and, when necessary, choose a path that is best for the work by mutual agreement with all being heard and respected.
I think this might be good for a family or a congregation as well as a staff. [Maybe even a denomination.] I also do not believe this negates teaching the whole counsel of God authoritatively. I happen to believe in authority coming from the annointing of the Holy Spirit rather than a pastoral position because I take seriously the command to not Lord it over the flock.
But, as I said, this practical approach is not sacred [though undergirded by biblical principles] nor perhaps even the best way, but it is mine...and God has, by His grace, blessed it.
Paul Burleson
Sunday, May 27, 2007
A TALE OF FORTY EIGHT YEARS
May 28th 1959. Some days you just don't forget. It was hot, humid, and the air conditioning at the First Baptist Church in Edmond Oklahoma had gone out. On top of that, all ten siblings of the bride were in the wedding. I waited at the front so long I needed to shave again. I thought the event would never transpire.
After six hours [ministerially speaking] she came in. One look and I knew she was worth the agony of the wait. I can still see her start down the aisle. I had sung a very special song to her many times. [This was when music WAS really music.]
First a boy and a girl meet each other
Then they sit down to talk for awhile
In your heart you want her for a lover
While each step draws you closer to the aisle
You may start with a simple conversation
Like darling please put me on trial
Then you'll know in your heart she is just for you
While each step draws you closer to the aisle
Then you put a ring on her finger
And the tears start flowing about
In your heart you'll now she is just for you
While each step draws you closer to the aisle
The preacher did his part. [He was her dad] He asked "do you?" We both said "I do." He said "you are." And we were married at the ripe old age of 17 [her] and 18. [Me]. I kissed her and was perspiring so badly [the heat you know] I slid off her lips. Forty-eight years later...today-May 28th...I'm still kissing her but not sliding off as I once did. It's created a few problems across the years. Four children, thirteen grandchildren and one great-grand child. But as the country song says "If I had it to do all over...I'd do it all over again."
Now, you're probably wondering what could have possessed Mary to do it and to stay with me so long. She wasn't too sure the night before the wedding. She got cold feet. She doubted slightly. I fixed that. I reminded her It was God's will. This was back in the days when I knew God's will for everyone if they would just listen to me. Some did some didn't. She did. I'm glad. I think she is too.
But to break a blog fast to celebrate this day I do need to speak seriously for a moment. [Though Mary and I have learned to not take much too seriously.] What does go into a marriage enabling it to last for forty-eight years?
Only the Grace of God and the reality of Christ as our life is the real answer. But to break it down into bite size portions I would say......
Acceptance....We're learning to accept each other where we are, as we are, with no demands for change made by the other.
Respect....We're learning to appreciate each other as individuals NOT defined by the other. Funny how the Bible DOESN'T teach the "two shall become one." When someone says that to you a wise question to ask them would be..."which one?" It does teach the "two shall become one flesh." But that's the kissing part. It kind of seals the union of two complete, whole, unique individuals in a life long covenant sealing it with....that kiss. [And a lot more if you get my drift.]
Commitment....We're learning to be genuinely committed to the life we have in Christ by the Grace of God and a willingness to change as we continue to grow in every way. You do have the chance you know [if you stick around with each other long enough] to grow up, older, wiser, more gracious, more forgiving and, you know, all those christian things that are really just His life experienced.
In fact, the key, if there is one, may be in those first two words in each of the preceding paragraphs..."We're learning." If that ever stops you're dead in the water and the marriage will start leaking and probably sink. We've had some leaks, fixed them, and then we find some more. But the Grace of God is a gorilla of a glue.
That's the only way Mary's done it. Me? I've been perfect for the past thirty or forty years. :)
The truth really is Mary is that gorilla glue [Grace] embodied in a woman. Were that not a fact forty-eight would have never happened. My true thoughts of her are still those thoughts I had when I saw her start down that aisle a long time ago. The line of another song says what those thoughts were and are..."She's close enough to perfect for me."
Happy anniversary Mary. Thank you for the best years of my life.
Paul
Monday, May 21, 2007
BREAKING A FAST PART II
The following are the thoughts of my good friend and former staff member turned Senior Pastor to Paul and Mary Burleson for the past ten years, Chuck Andrews. Chuck is now on a heart transplant list awaiting a new heart. But the old one, it will become obvious to anyone reading his words, while having lost capacity physically, is still pumping in the body of a man who knows and loves the Lord and is feeding a mind and spirit that are clearly functioning at a high level. Read and enjoy as did I.
Authority, Leadership, & Relationships
After reading Paul Burleson’s post about Authority In The Local Church the following thoughts and ideas came to me. In the Old Covenant people were born into their position of priest or king. Their authority was inherent in their person according to their birthright. Prophets were called into their positions of authority and a stereotypical personality doesn’t appear to be a prerequisite to the call.
The following may show how historically culture has influenced our thinking in the matter of “authority” in the local church of the New Covenant.“The Divine Right of Kings states that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, not to the will of his subjects, parliament, the aristocracy, or any other competing authority." This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God.” [Wikipedia ] A Priest is defined as “One who is designated an authority on religious matters. In some churches, especially the Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodox Church, and Roman Catholic Church, the ordained church leader who serves a congregation of believers is called a priest. The priests in these churches administer the sacraments, preach, and care for the needs of their congregations.” [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company.]
A more evangelical term is Prophet. Defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company as ..."1- A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. 2- A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression. 3- A predictor; a soothsayer. 4- The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause."
In most of the SBC pastoral training I’ve been through and, for that matter, most of the evangelical pastors I have been around have put these three historical cultural ideas together and come up with an understanding of their own gift and calling. They owe their rule (kingship) to the will of God and to question their authority is to oppose the will of God. Though, confessionally, they verbally give ascent to the priesthood of the believer, they believe themselves to be ordained, educated, and authorized by God to administer the ordinances, preach, and be the all around expert on ministry. And when they speak it is as the inspired interpreter of God’s word and will with irrefutable insight (because God told them) and they use oratorical persuasion to convince people that they are right. We are trained to hold this professional position of pastor. So rationally, biblically, spiritually, and culturally I defended the “authority because of position and person” view myself and believed it whole heartedly. My identity was wrapped up in being a prophet, priest, and king--contemporarily, culturally, and sometimes compassionately called pastor.
There are some truths in this understanding—we do owe everything to the will of God; we do believe in the priesthood of the believer (at least in theory); and preaching is a ministry of inspiration, insight, and public speaking. Also, there is nothing wrong with being trained through education and mentoring. I don’t believe there is a problem with being a pastor professionally and doing everything you can to be the best pastor you can be. Diligently leading is not only commendable but commanded in the scriptures. In Romans 12:8 those who are gifted as leaders are to express that gift "with diligence." “The elders who rule (to lead out in care for) well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard (persistent strenuous labor) at preaching and teaching.” (1 Ti 5:17).
Yet, more often that not, we are seduced by our own egos to swallow, hook-line-and-sinker, the historical cultural perception of authority. Pastors who are more concerned with authority than leadership use that perception to defend their authoritarian posture. In word or deed they say something like, “God has called me, ordained me, and anointed me so don’t question my authority. After all, I have a degree, license, and ordination hanging on the wall.” Then they throw in something like “It’s very dangerous to do anything against the Lord’s anointed.” Their authority and identity is postured in “I am the pastor!”
In support of this seduction, it seems that in today’s church growth movement, churches are looking for a savior who will redeem their church from irrelevancy, the next king who will lead them to kingdom growth, (more numbers) a priest who will represent them before God, and a prophet who will confidently and effectively tell them God’s will for their lives. As pastors we are all too often more than pleased to be that person, if we can, and if we can’t, we judge ourselves against those who can.
Thus, what is pragmatically a pastoral health, wealth, and prosperity mindset, comes through in our conventions and conferences, then it filters into our churches. Paraded before us are a few men, [and fewer women] who are highly acclaimed because they are successful as defined by our culture. Then with all the right verbiage and pragmatic values we deceive ourselves into believing that if we can look, lead, and lecture like them we too will be successful as defined by our religious culture. The mindset becomes, God wants all pastors to be dynamic preachers, charismatic personalities, and gifted CEOs. He wants all churches to have continual numerical growth in attendance, finances, and ministries. If we’re not being that kind of pastor and if our church is not experiencing that kind of growth then it’s because we are not allowing God to develop us into the leader He wants us to be.
Antiquity has become relevant in this post-modern cultural phenomenon.Whether these values are by the Spirit or the flesh it makes no difference. Visible results are what matters. Today, in this Western culture, it is not uncommon for a local church to be developed and grow around a charismatic (not theologically but personality) pastor. With the advancement of electronics, these types of pastors can become bigger than life, being broadcast to multiple locations and reaching thousands through video and internet. Accordingly, pastors can begin to judge themselves in comparison to these bigger than life images. Also, churches can begin to judge their pastors by those they see on the internet, hear on the radio, watch on TV, or read from the Christian bookstore.
Unfortunately, lay leaders can be seduced by their own egos to be a part of a “successful” church and become authoritarian toward pastors, too.With this marriage of past and present the stage is set for a culturally acceptable form of spiritual abuse. In some circles it’s called “Pastoral Authority.” In other circles it is “Congregational Authority.” In my opinion, in all circles, it is an “identity crisis.” Both, pastors and churches, are getting their identity from culture instead of from Jesus.
In the New Covenant we are all (re)born equally and called equally. Maybe at Christmas time we would do well to remember that the one whose birth we celebrate was born Savior, Prophet, Priest, and King. He alone has authority inherent in His Person and Position. He alone rules His kingdom. He alone fulfilled all the roles of the Old Covenant completely and perfectly. He alone absolutely and faultlessly represented God to people and people to God. He alone is the one and only God-Man. If the local church is His then He is her Authority. As our authority He is our identity.There is to be a harmony and melody between pastors and people. Not a blind following due to authoritarian roles but a relationship built on personal knowledge, reputation and giftedness. Eugene Peterson interprets Hebrews 13:7 “Appreciate your pastoral leaders who gave you the Word of God. Take a good look at the way they live, and let their faithfulness instruct you, as well as their truthfulness. There should be a consistency that runs through us all. For Jesus doesn’t change—yesterday, today, tomorrow, he’s always totally himself.” Then in verse 17, “Be responsive to your pastoral leaders. Listen to their counsel. They are alert to the condition of your lives and work under the strict supervision of God. Contribute to the joy of their leadership, not its drudgery. Why would you want to make things harder for them?” You see in this interpretation that a relationship between people and pastors is developed through a willingness for each to serve the other. Pastors receive a positive reception, responsiveness, and respect in direct proportion to their willingness to relate their lives to the congregation and employee their gifts in service to the congregation. Congregations are to give this positive reception, responsiveness, and respect as they, in relationship with their pastors, observe the identity of Jesus throughout the lives of their pastors. Christ is “seated far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph. 1:21) and as servants of His, we serve each other in “the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23).
It is impossible to serve one another as is defined in Hebrews without people and pastor being in a growing relationship with each other. The bases of this relationship is a recognition that Christ is the Head and each submits to Him and that one is not more “full of Christ” than the other. In fact, maybe it takes “all” to experience the totality of the fullness of Christ since He “fills all in all.”Regardless of the time period, churches don’t need another Savior, Prophet, Priest, or King. We need servants who will demonstrate Jesus, regardless of whether those servants are called pastors, elders, deacons, teachers, councils, leaders, committees, or members.
May we all find our identity in Christ and learn to live in Christ. If we do, we will become servants like Christ. Then pastors and people will not be campaigning for authority but will be serving one another--accepting one another, respecting one another, appreciating one another, knowing one another.
__________________________________________________________________
I thought you might need the reminder and enjoy the reading of this prophetic word as I did. My blog fast will be over after our 48th wedding anniversary on May 28th.
Paul Burleson
Authority, Leadership, & Relationships
After reading Paul Burleson’s post about Authority In The Local Church the following thoughts and ideas came to me. In the Old Covenant people were born into their position of priest or king. Their authority was inherent in their person according to their birthright. Prophets were called into their positions of authority and a stereotypical personality doesn’t appear to be a prerequisite to the call.
The following may show how historically culture has influenced our thinking in the matter of “authority” in the local church of the New Covenant.“The Divine Right of Kings states that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, not to the will of his subjects, parliament, the aristocracy, or any other competing authority." This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God.” [Wikipedia ] A Priest is defined as “One who is designated an authority on religious matters. In some churches, especially the Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodox Church, and Roman Catholic Church, the ordained church leader who serves a congregation of believers is called a priest. The priests in these churches administer the sacraments, preach, and care for the needs of their congregations.” [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company.]
A more evangelical term is Prophet. Defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company as ..."1- A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. 2- A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression. 3- A predictor; a soothsayer. 4- The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause."
In most of the SBC pastoral training I’ve been through and, for that matter, most of the evangelical pastors I have been around have put these three historical cultural ideas together and come up with an understanding of their own gift and calling. They owe their rule (kingship) to the will of God and to question their authority is to oppose the will of God. Though, confessionally, they verbally give ascent to the priesthood of the believer, they believe themselves to be ordained, educated, and authorized by God to administer the ordinances, preach, and be the all around expert on ministry. And when they speak it is as the inspired interpreter of God’s word and will with irrefutable insight (because God told them) and they use oratorical persuasion to convince people that they are right. We are trained to hold this professional position of pastor. So rationally, biblically, spiritually, and culturally I defended the “authority because of position and person” view myself and believed it whole heartedly. My identity was wrapped up in being a prophet, priest, and king--contemporarily, culturally, and sometimes compassionately called pastor.
There are some truths in this understanding—we do owe everything to the will of God; we do believe in the priesthood of the believer (at least in theory); and preaching is a ministry of inspiration, insight, and public speaking. Also, there is nothing wrong with being trained through education and mentoring. I don’t believe there is a problem with being a pastor professionally and doing everything you can to be the best pastor you can be. Diligently leading is not only commendable but commanded in the scriptures. In Romans 12:8 those who are gifted as leaders are to express that gift "with diligence." “The elders who rule (to lead out in care for) well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard (persistent strenuous labor) at preaching and teaching.” (1 Ti 5:17).
Yet, more often that not, we are seduced by our own egos to swallow, hook-line-and-sinker, the historical cultural perception of authority. Pastors who are more concerned with authority than leadership use that perception to defend their authoritarian posture. In word or deed they say something like, “God has called me, ordained me, and anointed me so don’t question my authority. After all, I have a degree, license, and ordination hanging on the wall.” Then they throw in something like “It’s very dangerous to do anything against the Lord’s anointed.” Their authority and identity is postured in “I am the pastor!”
In support of this seduction, it seems that in today’s church growth movement, churches are looking for a savior who will redeem their church from irrelevancy, the next king who will lead them to kingdom growth, (more numbers) a priest who will represent them before God, and a prophet who will confidently and effectively tell them God’s will for their lives. As pastors we are all too often more than pleased to be that person, if we can, and if we can’t, we judge ourselves against those who can.
Thus, what is pragmatically a pastoral health, wealth, and prosperity mindset, comes through in our conventions and conferences, then it filters into our churches. Paraded before us are a few men, [and fewer women] who are highly acclaimed because they are successful as defined by our culture. Then with all the right verbiage and pragmatic values we deceive ourselves into believing that if we can look, lead, and lecture like them we too will be successful as defined by our religious culture. The mindset becomes, God wants all pastors to be dynamic preachers, charismatic personalities, and gifted CEOs. He wants all churches to have continual numerical growth in attendance, finances, and ministries. If we’re not being that kind of pastor and if our church is not experiencing that kind of growth then it’s because we are not allowing God to develop us into the leader He wants us to be.
Antiquity has become relevant in this post-modern cultural phenomenon.Whether these values are by the Spirit or the flesh it makes no difference. Visible results are what matters. Today, in this Western culture, it is not uncommon for a local church to be developed and grow around a charismatic (not theologically but personality) pastor. With the advancement of electronics, these types of pastors can become bigger than life, being broadcast to multiple locations and reaching thousands through video and internet. Accordingly, pastors can begin to judge themselves in comparison to these bigger than life images. Also, churches can begin to judge their pastors by those they see on the internet, hear on the radio, watch on TV, or read from the Christian bookstore.
Unfortunately, lay leaders can be seduced by their own egos to be a part of a “successful” church and become authoritarian toward pastors, too.With this marriage of past and present the stage is set for a culturally acceptable form of spiritual abuse. In some circles it’s called “Pastoral Authority.” In other circles it is “Congregational Authority.” In my opinion, in all circles, it is an “identity crisis.” Both, pastors and churches, are getting their identity from culture instead of from Jesus.
In the New Covenant we are all (re)born equally and called equally. Maybe at Christmas time we would do well to remember that the one whose birth we celebrate was born Savior, Prophet, Priest, and King. He alone has authority inherent in His Person and Position. He alone rules His kingdom. He alone fulfilled all the roles of the Old Covenant completely and perfectly. He alone absolutely and faultlessly represented God to people and people to God. He alone is the one and only God-Man. If the local church is His then He is her Authority. As our authority He is our identity.There is to be a harmony and melody between pastors and people. Not a blind following due to authoritarian roles but a relationship built on personal knowledge, reputation and giftedness. Eugene Peterson interprets Hebrews 13:7 “Appreciate your pastoral leaders who gave you the Word of God. Take a good look at the way they live, and let their faithfulness instruct you, as well as their truthfulness. There should be a consistency that runs through us all. For Jesus doesn’t change—yesterday, today, tomorrow, he’s always totally himself.” Then in verse 17, “Be responsive to your pastoral leaders. Listen to their counsel. They are alert to the condition of your lives and work under the strict supervision of God. Contribute to the joy of their leadership, not its drudgery. Why would you want to make things harder for them?” You see in this interpretation that a relationship between people and pastors is developed through a willingness for each to serve the other. Pastors receive a positive reception, responsiveness, and respect in direct proportion to their willingness to relate their lives to the congregation and employee their gifts in service to the congregation. Congregations are to give this positive reception, responsiveness, and respect as they, in relationship with their pastors, observe the identity of Jesus throughout the lives of their pastors. Christ is “seated far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph. 1:21) and as servants of His, we serve each other in “the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23).
It is impossible to serve one another as is defined in Hebrews without people and pastor being in a growing relationship with each other. The bases of this relationship is a recognition that Christ is the Head and each submits to Him and that one is not more “full of Christ” than the other. In fact, maybe it takes “all” to experience the totality of the fullness of Christ since He “fills all in all.”Regardless of the time period, churches don’t need another Savior, Prophet, Priest, or King. We need servants who will demonstrate Jesus, regardless of whether those servants are called pastors, elders, deacons, teachers, councils, leaders, committees, or members.
May we all find our identity in Christ and learn to live in Christ. If we do, we will become servants like Christ. Then pastors and people will not be campaigning for authority but will be serving one another--accepting one another, respecting one another, appreciating one another, knowing one another.
__________________________________________________________________
I thought you might need the reminder and enjoy the reading of this prophetic word as I did. My blog fast will be over after our 48th wedding anniversary on May 28th.
Paul Burleson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)