Pure Church

After posting some comments on a church battle resulting in the resignation of its pastor, pointing out that as a congregationalist I believe the church has the right to call its pastors, a couple brothers asked me to defend myself. "How could I be a congregationalist?!" No, actually, they didn't say that. They were very kind and raised good questions. It's Friday and I'm a little punchy :-)

So, in my last post I gave this reason for being a congregationalist: Texts like Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5; and 2 Corinthians 2:6 all teach or imply that the congregation acts decisively in the exercise of church discipline. So, in those matters, I am a congregationalist.

A second reason I am a congregationalist involves matters of doctrinal error in the teaching ministry of the church. In short, it seems to me that the pattern for corrective response in doctrinal error involves the congregation finally censoring or removing the erring teacher(s) and safeguarding the gospel.

I have in mind a couple of passages.

First, when Paul writes to the churches of Galatia, he does not address a monarchical bishop or a council of rulers/elders. He writes "to the churches in Galatia." We know the apostle was not shy about addressing leaders or individuals personally where he feels they have some obligation or responsibility (1 & 2 Timothy; Titus; and Philemon). So, his writing to the churches as a whole rather than individual leaders or groups of leaders is significant. And what he tells those congregations is that they are to judge what is taught against what they received, rejecting even angels and pronouncing anathema on gospel-distorting false teachers (Gal. 1:8-9). The congregation has a doctrinal and gospel trust it is to protect. We see a very similar responsibility in Ezekiel 34:17-23 where the Lord promises to judge the strong sheep for abusing the weak sheep when unfaithful shepherds were ruling (vv. 1-16). Congregational response and action are all the more important precisely when the elders or leadership of the church is in error. In other words, if there is no congregational backstop for erring leaders, then there is no safeguard for the truth. It is the church that is the pillar and ground of the truth--not the rulers alone or even primarily. May the Lord make us effective teachers so we have churches prepared to contend for the truth.

The second passage I have in mind is Titus 3:9-11. Here is a letter addressed personally to Titus, and his first order of business is to appoint elders as a previous comment noted. Titus is obviously in a church-planting or missionary situation where he is apparently the sole elder. Duly constituting elders is critical in his context. When Paul says in 3:9-11 that Titus should warn a divisive person up to two times then have nothing to do with him, do we think that only Titus is to avoid the divisive person? That's very improbable since the nature of the sin (schism or dividing the body) is undeniably corporate. For the discipline to work in the case of false teachers and the instruction to have any sense, it must be the congregation that is finally putting away these controversialists.

We see the same thing in Romans 16:17--"I urge you, brothers, watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them." The dividers of the body are able to work their splits "by smooth talk and flattery" that "deceive the minds of naive people" (v. 18). So the entire congregation must pull away from such people.

The church--the entire body of Christ--guards against false teaching, especially when the teaching comes from within or from one or more of her leaders. This isn't merely a pragmatic argument to limit elder rule. It's what the Scripture holds out as the weighted balance against abuses in leadership and false teaching.

A couple folks visiting to comment in my last post have asked on what biblical basis am I a congregationalist. That's what I get for throwing out terms like "congregationalist"!

I'm a congregationalist. I believe the congregation has the final say-so in certain matters, including the calling and termination of its pastors.

It was once a rising trend. It's now a model for ministry for significant numbers of churches and pastors. It simultaneously offers itself as an example of deep partnership between husbands and wives, and dismisses biblical instruction. What am I talking about? The widespread approach to pastoral ministry where a husband and a wife "co-pastor" a local church.

Among that branch of "evangelicalism" (I'm using the term loosely) typically associated with Word of Faith, prosperity "gospel," charismatic believers, this approach to ministry appears to be dominant.

The trend grew slowly. Generally a man pastoring a church would achieve a certain status. After a few years, his wife, typically called the "first lady" of the church, would be noted for some teaching gifts and call to ministry. She would make occasional appearances in the pulpit to improve her gift, but not too many appearances to upset those discerning some problem with the practice. Over time, she'd appear more and more in the pulpit, relieving the husband while he was away and shepherding the people as a "pastor."

It's been a silent revolution. Not many shots have been fired at all really. It has occurred like so many other errors in that camp of contemporary Christianity--while auditoriums are filled with people, Bibles open, taking notes, and swallowing the camel.

Kenneth, then Gloria, Copeland. Creflo, then Taffy, Dollar. Randy, then Paula, White. To a lesser extent, T.D., then Serita, Jakes. These high-profile preachers have spawned a practice of ministry that now replicates itself in strip malls and megachurches around the country.

Recently, one couple, Paula and Randy White, announced before their 23,000 member church in Florida that they are seeking a divorce (HT: Sharper Iron). Paula and Randy have pastored the church since its founding. Understandably, the news of their divorce shocked and hurt a lot of the church's members.But in recent years, Paula has well eclipsed her husband in popularity and ministry. She is a frequent conference speaker and hosts regular shows on BET and TBN. Emulating in many respects the ethos of black women preachers, and preaching "health and wealth," Paula is something of a rock star in some circles.

The sad announcement of their divorce prompts a number of questions about the nature of gender roles in the church and marriage, and the effect of such ministry models on the local church.

1. Can such a practice be consistent with complementarian gender roles at church and home? Most everyone I know who thinks this is not only an acceptable but a good model would say "yes." In other words, most of the folks I know in this camp and ministers who adopt this practice intend to be complementarians. They preach a great deal on the home and family, the necessity of male headship, and female submission in the home. They would argue that a woman should only have a ministry of this sort with her husband "as her covering," exercising headship by granting approval/support; otherwise, a wife should not have such a ministry. Leaving aside for a moment the myriad of theological difficulties with the position, can it even work practically? I have my doubts. In the case of the Whites, Paula is continuing on with her ministries, establishing a home in another city, and with her husband dissolving the marriage. It would seem that at essence the model is egalitarian and models a "partnership" model of marriage that distorts biblical gender roles. And the families of the church have, whether knowingly or not, been imbibing from their "pastors" a model for family life ill-fitted to the biblical design and their joy.

2. Can such a practice be consistent with a high view of biblical authority in the church and the home? Again, most people in these camps would say "yes." They would appeal to examples of women prophets in the Scriptures and reason that Paul's prohibition against women in authority was cultural, time and circumstance-bound. It was a woman who brought news of Jesus resurrection to men and so women ought be able to preach, especially under the "covering" of their husbands. But that clearly contradicts Paul's instructions in 1 Tim. 2. And the attempt to justify the practice is little more than setting aside the authority of Scripture. And not surprisingly, the church suffers great confusion.

3. Can there be any genuine biblical accountability of such couples? Given that the authority of the scriptures is set aside on so basic a matter as who God appoints to lead in the home and the church, it's difficult to imagine that there can be any real accountability for "co-pastors" in these situations. Most of these churches are set up like corporations, not like NT churches. So, typically, husband and wife are founding board members along with a couple other trusted friends. Nothing appears to be governed in either a congregational or a connectional manner. So, there is no higher "court" than the co-pastors themselves. When trouble hits, appeal is made to "life coaches" and trusted friends as accountability partners. It's really an unloving, unscriptural and dangerous position for the "pastors" and the church. Paula will continue with her ministry pursuits. Randy will continue as pastor of Without Walls. This is the second divorce for them both, a divorce proceeding without any biblical grounds according to the article. The model appears closed to any loving, biblical accountability that would help the couple fight for their marriage, submit to the counsel and discipline of the church, and model grace during real difficulty for the congregation.

This approach to ministry is bankrupt because it's so consistently contrary to God's blueprint. The couples approaching the ministry this way are placing themselves in spiritually precarious situations, and the churches they "pastor" are toeing a cliff as well. It's obvious, but it bears stating: we desperately need churches reformed according to the word of God.