When Southern Baptists formed a convention in Illinois, the name Illinois Baptist Convention was already taken. That is why Southern Baptists in Illinois are called the Illinois Baptist State Association. It’s the only state I’m aware of using a name like that.

We just had our annual meeting in Edwardsville, IL on Nov. 3-4th. Here are my thoughts.

• Illinois Baptists started several new partnerships. The coolest one is a partnership with Joni and Friends to equip churches to reach and include people and families with disabilities. That means a lot to me because church can be hard for my brother, and I’m grateful for churches that prepare and welcome.
• My favorite moment was when we presented the new churches who joined our association. There were Mongolian, Romanian, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish churches among the seventeen who joined.
• It is good to see friends and make new ones. I saw a church planter we support in Lebanon, IL and a worship pastor who served with my dad 20+years ago. I got to know Michael Awbrey at the IBSA who also enjoys Wendell Berry’s writing.
• Dr. Doug Munton’s sermon was excellent and encouraging. He is pastor at FBC O’Fallon and served as president the last two years. Doug was my wife’s pastor when she was in college. She was a young Christian and hadn’t been raised in the church. I’m grateful for his ministry to her in that time of her life.
• The IMB is the crown jewel of the SBC. It was good to talk with some of our missionaries and staff.
• One morning included a series of breakout sessions for training. I went to both sessions by Lifeway’s Ken Braddy: “Tips for tuning up your teaching” and “How to ask great discussion questions in Bible study”. Judging by the size of the crowd in the second one, lots of people struggle with that topic. One of his tips: after teaching through a given verse or concept, ask an open-ended question about people’s experience applying that concept. “Break into groups of two or three and describe a time when hardship or a trial turned out for your good.”
• Something I noticed: different styles of speaking and preaching. I grew up in the South, and my wife grew up in the Midwest. We’ve always gone back and forth about what we like and dislike in preaching or speaking styles. I noticed at this meeting that most speakers-whether they were doing a long presentation or a short presentation-read their notes. Randy Davis from the Tennessee Baptists spoke without notes as far as I could tell. It was very polished, relaxed, and compelling, and it was very persuasive for me. I now suspect that it is a cultural thing in the Midwest or the northern states to speak from notes. My wife helped me realize when we talked about this that a speaker that doesn’t rely heavily on notes can communicate to someone like her that they are unprepared and don’t care. For me who grew up in the South, I assume that a speaker that doesn’t constantly rely on notes is actually more prepared and believes what they are saying. What do you think of my cultural analysis? Does that fit with your experience?
• Missed Opportunity: Congregational singing. When 500 Baptists come together, give them the chance to sing. This is not a reference to style. You can kill singing even though you have a choir and orchestra, and you can kill it with a band. Song selection, keys, and familiarity all contribute to people singing or not singing. If you want to sing new songs, then share them in advance so that people can learn them.
• On my way home, I thought of what theme I would use if I ever selected one. I will share my theme as a suggestion: Psalm 1: Planted. “He is like a tree planted by streams of water that produces fruit in its season. . .” Choose songs like Shepherd (Psalm 23), Lifter of My Head (Psalm 3), How Long, O Lord (Psalm 13). 
• My plea to Southern Baptists: Show up. Eat with people. Stay the whole time. The work gets done by those who show up and stay. Churches that give more and are bigger have a lot of visibility in SBC life. Anyone, though, can play an important part if they show up, stay, and serve.

Personal Note: I’ve neglected writing recently because we’ve been busy moving. We moved from a house to an apartment. Everything went smoothly, but my wife and I both have aching backs. Moving’s not a good thing for old people.

Recently, Rod Martin, former member of the SBC Executive Committee, published an article about revivals in the Baptist Report. In the article, he fondly remembers the revival meetings of his youth and laments the near disappearance of revivals today. He attributes the decline in revivals to the rise of Calvinistic pastors in the SBC.

I was born in 1949, so I can remember the heyday of revivals in SBC churches in the 1950s and 1960s.  In those days, lots of SBC churches had a fall revival, a spring revival, and a summer youth revival. Most revivals lasted for one week, but I’ve heard old-timers talk about two-week meetings. Beyond that, sometimes, when the Lord blessed greatly, the revival would continue as a “protracted meeting.” Many Southern Baptist preachers served as “full-time” evangelists, going from church to church to lead revivals. I also knew full-time music evangelists who led the music in one meeting after another. Most pastors would preach one or two revivals for pastor friends each year, and the freedom to do that was negotiated when they accepted a call to a new church. Another popular thing was simultaneous revivals. The churches in an association or state convention would hold revivals at the same time. Folks of my generation (Baby Boomers) grew up watching Billy Graham evangelistic crusades on television. So, revivals were part of our spiritual DNA. Today, it’s rare to hear of a church holding a revival, though sometimes you hear of a group of churches joining together to sponsor an evangelistic meeting in a town or county. Often those meetings are held in a football stadium.

Why did revival meetings decline in Southern Baptist life? Rod Martin, as I mentioned above, attributes the decline to the increase in the number of Calvinistic pastors in the SBC. Well, it’s certainly true that those pastors do not like revivals, nor do they offer a traditional invitation (altar call) at the end of their worship services. Why not? They cite psychological manipulation by evangelists when they gave the invitation. Personally, I believe the problem of psychological manipulation is overblown. In all the revivals I attended, I only recall two evangelists who did manipulate the congregation. I believe the decline in revivals began before the number of Calvinistic pastors became significant.

Revival meetings declined because people quit coming. In other words, they voted with their feet. I became the interim pastor of a county seat First Baptist Church in 1992. The long-time pastor who had just retired scheduled a revival meeting every fall and spring. I led the music in the last one before he retired. The attendance averaged about 30 people each night, and this in an auditorium that seated 400. Only one lost person attended during the week-long meeting. Thankfully, he did profess faith in Christ. After the meeting, the pastor asked me why people stopped attending revivals. I answered, “Revivals used to be the best show in town, but now they have to compete with ESPN and HBO.” When I became the interim pastor, the deacons asked me if I planned to hold a revival meeting. When I said, no, they exclaimed, “Thank God.” They were just burned out on them.

Could a church sponsor a revival meeting now and have a positive experience? I believe it’s possible. I knew a pastor in Kentucky who would schedule a revival meeting each spring. He would invite a full-time evangelist to preach. Six weeks before the revival meeting, he would offer a personal evangelism training event for his members. After the training, they would do evangelistic visitation for five weeks, leading up to the meeting. Simultaneously, he had prayer teams praying for lost people by name. When the revival meeting began, it was like a harvest time. That pastor always had good attendance and good results. Most years, his church led the state convention in baptisms. So, yes, a revival meeting can still succeed, but it requires careful scheduling and intense preparation.

What are your memories of revival meetings? Are they good or bad or mixed? Should churches resume sponsoring revival meetings? Thom Rainer once said that SBC churches abandoned the revival meeting as an evangelistic method, but they did not replace it with anything. He’s right about that.

I’m leading some change in our church. People are shocked by something that I’ve done, and I’m shocked that it is so revolutionary. 

I go and tell people face to face what we’re considering. People’s reaction to that is that pastors (or leaders) normally tell the church what they want to do, and people can either accept it or get upset and leave.

I don’t think it is just the church I pastor. We have lost the quality of love in leadership. Leadership with love has been neglected and misused so that people don’t even expect their leaders to love them anymore. Pastors have misplaced it while looking for leadership principles that work.

I’ve been memorizing 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. I’m convicted that it was intended as a guideline for life in the church including for leaders, not just for marriage or other contexts that need love. Imagine if we put love back into leadership.

• Leadership with love is patient. Worldly leadership demands its way today. Love means we bring people along with us. It’s not patience if it is the timeframe we wanted.
• Leadership with love is kind. Would our staff, deacons, and church members describe our leadership style as kind? 
• Leadership with love does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. We don’t compete with our church staff or members for first place or for our own glory and approval. We are glad when others look good and are honored.
• Leadership with love does not dishonor others. Are people used to our leadership as rude? Do we excuse bad behavior as “that’s just how I am” or “that’s how I was raised?”
• Leadership with love is not self-seeking. Leadership is not about our way and our success but about seeking the good of others.
• Leadership with love is not easily angered. Worldly leadership uses anger as a tool. It expects anger from leaders. Godly leadership gets angry slowly and only about the things that God does. Would our family say that we are not easily angered?
• Leadership with love keeps no record of wrongs. Do we have a list of wrongs in the church? Can we remember the names of those who hurt us? It is good to put it away, overlook, and forgive.
• Leadership with love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. Are we happier when someone falls in ministry than when someone prospers?
• Leadership with love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Do people who serve with us and are under our care have our protection, trust, hope, and perseverance?

John Currie in The Pastor as Leader says, “It is important to realize that leaders who are exposed in headline-worthy scandals have a love problem long before they have a sex or money problem. Love must be the animating affection for the pastor’s leadership ethic.”

May we put love back in leadership “because He first loved us.”

Let me start by declaring that I have no axe to grind in this polity debate. I’m neither an advocate for elder polity, nor am I implacably opposed to it. When I teach church planting in a seminary, I always talk about how to organize the new church. The last time I taught about this, I told my class: “I’ve reached the point where I’m just happy if a church is organized in some way.” My wife and I are members of a church that employs traditional congregational polity, while our adult daughter is a member of an elder-led church. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve never been a member of an elder-led church, so I have no personal experience with that polity.

What have we learned about elder polity in previous posts?  We’ve learned that it was common in the New Testament era. Acts 14:23 and 20:17 support this statement. In my opinion, leadership by plural elders was the most common polity in the New Testament church. Still, it is important to remember that Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 demonstrate that the New Testament writers used the terms elder, overseer, and pastor interchangeably. Therefore, it would be biblically correct to substitute the term overseer, or the term pastor, for elder.

The use of elder polity has increased greatly in the SBC in the past 40 years. When I began in ministry 60 years ago, there were no elder-led churches in the SBC (at least that I was aware of). Due to the rise of Calvinism in the SBC, the influence of the 9 Marks organization, and the teaching at Southern Baptist Seminary elder polity has gained in popularity.

What are the advantages of elder polity?

It is biblical. It may not have been common in SBC churches in the past, but it is biblical

It spreads the load for pastoral care so that one pastor does not have to bear all the responsibility.

Multiple elders means that the varied spiritual gifts of several men are applied to the church’s needs.

It is easier to inform 5/7/9 elders about an issue or project rather than an entire congregation.

Elder polity avoids the problem of concentrating power in the hands of one pastor.

There is wisdom in the advice of multiple counselors (Prov. 11:14).

The preaching pastor can focus more on preaching rather than administrative tasks.

There is better continuity in leadership during times of pastoral transition.

Elder polity returns deacons to their New Testament pattern—serving rather than ruling.

Elder polity provides for better accountability for the pastor.

What are the disadvantages of elder polity?

Most SBC churches have used the pastor/deacons congregational model. So, the transition to elder polity might be difficult. The congregation may resist the change.

The majority of SBC churches are small. They may not have enough qualified men to serve as elders.

It is difficult and time-consuming to identify and train elders. For example, in my daughter’s church, potential elders are identified and then undergo 18 months of training before being presented to the congregation for election as elders.

There is potential for conflict between the elders. The presented model is one with a unified elder board that serves in harmony and effectiveness. The reality is not always so positive.

In practice, the elders are not equal. The preaching elder typically exercises more authority. Thus, there may be role confusion among the elders in regard to responsibilities.

Last, Dr. Jere Phillips, long-time professor of practical theology at Mid-America Baptist Seminary, made this observation. In congregational polity, those opposed to the pastor must convince 51% of the members to terminate the pastor. With elder polity, three men on an elder board could terminate the pastor.

In the next post, I’ll explain the advantages and disadvantages of congregational polity.

This is one of a series of posts about Baptist church polity (governance). I plan to write posts on the advantages and disadvantages of congregational church polity and elder polity. So, stay tuned for those. This post is just a rambling memoir of my personal experiences with the polity of SBC churches. Most of my experiences have been positive, but not all.

I began my paid service in Southern Baptist churches at age nineteen. I served as the Minister of Music and Youth at a church in Northeast Oklahoma. The church presented itself as a traditional congregational SBC church, and the congregation did vote on things. In reality, though, the church was controlled by its deacon chairman. He basically ran the church, and the members were content to let him. One issue that I had with him was about money, specifically money in the bank. All the older members of the church had lived through the Great Depression of the 1930s. They remembered the days when the church could not pay its bills, and bankruptcy was a real possibility. Because of that trauma, this deacon sought to accumulate as much money as possible in the bank. He, and indeed all the older members, feared an economic depression might return. Their response was to save as much money as possible for that rainy day. I argued in vain that the members gave money for ministry, not for savings. My pleas fell on deaf ears. They thought I could not understand because I did not live through the depression.

During my Master of Divinity studies at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, I served on a church staff in the DFW area. This church was run by the deacons. The previous senior pastor had no interest in church administration, and he let the deacons run the church. We had 45 active deacons, and their average age was 63. There was no deacon rotation plan. A deacon served as chairman of every church committee, even the flowers committee. Deacons comprised the majority of members on key church committees like finance and personnel. The senior pastor during my time tried to move the church to a healthier approach. He worked for a deacon rotation system and more non-deacon representation on church committees. As you might expect, there was considerable pushback from the deacons. They did not oppose the pastor much in the deacons’ meetings, but they would stay after and discuss things in the parking lot. The chairman of the deacons during my time was not a strong leader, and the church staff wondered who really exerted influence. Finally, a deacon who supported the pastor enlightened us. He said, “Notice that the men gather around the former chairman in the parking lot” (at the meeting after the meeting). Sure enough, he was right, and that former chairman adamantly opposed the senior pastor. At one point, I pointed out to the deacon chairman that the New Testament teaches that deacons are to serve the church, not rule it. He answered, “Those guys don’t care what the Bible says.” He spoke the truth, and, of course, their attitude was the main problem. The senior pastor won in the end. The church did finally approve a deacon rotation system, but the pastor and his family paid a great price.

Some years later, I served as the interim pastor of a county seat First Baptist Church in Kentucky. To an outside observer, the church practiced congregational polity, and in one way it did. The members voted on everything in the business meetings. However, only items approved by the deacons appeared on the business meeting agenda. Indeed, when the deacon chairman presented the deacons’ recommendations, no one was supposed to ask a question or make any comment. I recall one business meeting in which a new member asked the deacon chairman a question. The chairman was flustered at that and then obviously angry. The new member was surprised and embarrassed. He did not oppose the deacons’ recommendation; he was just curious about one aspect. Afterwards, an older member took the young man aside and explained that he was not supposed to speak in the business meeting. The chairman of the deacons served as chairman of the pastor search committee. Beyond that, when I left the church, the church secretary told me that the deacon chairman would come to the church office each week to inspect and approve the weekly church newsletter before it was mailed.

In my next post, I’ll discuss the pros and cons of elder polity for SBC churches. However, our Voices readers should understand that in many “congregational” SBC churches, the deacons functioned as the elders long before elder polity became popular in the SBC.

Recent Lifeway Research data on pastor compensation decries stagnant wages and how fewer and fewer churches pay their staff’s health insurance. I sympathize with my working brethren on both of these. I haven’t gotten a regular check from a church since I retired in 2011.

If I were the senior pastor of a church the size of the one from which I retired all those years ago I would have a pay package not much more than I was making when I retired. That’s stagnation indeed. My life eased considerably once I hit Medicare age a decade ago and I appreciate my kids paying my medical bills these days by working. Medicare is great for old folks but can’t be great forever. It’s the big federal budget wrecker.

To get to a compensation package of six figures in a Southern Baptist Church you need to be at a church attendance size of 150 and above in my state. If you have 25+ years of experience and a church of 150, the median church would put you at well above $100k per year.

Get to a church of 1,000+ in attendance and you’re above a quarter million dollars a year. Go for the big church, brethren, if you want to get paid. At a church that size you don’t even have to tell the congregation what you make. None of their business. They just give online and you spend it.

All these nuggets to say that the average senior pastor guy out there, the one in an average sized church, the one who has 15 or so years of experience – that guy works hard, has little staff support and makes less than an experienced nurse does in Georgia.

We can’t all be megapastors with megapaychecks, brethren. Your treasure is in heaven, not in your automatic pay deposit receipts.

___________________

This is Lifeway Research Compensation Tool. I have always thought that the tool OVER estimates pastor compensation.

The Bible refers to “elders” in three ways—village elders, synagogue elders, and church elders. Many New Testament scholars believe the biblical office of elder evolved from the role played by the elders of synagogues.

The New Testament uses four different Greek words for church leaders. The Greek word, diakonia, is translated as “deacon” in our English Bible. The other three words are episcopos, presbuteros, and poimen. These three words are translated as bishop/overseer, elder, and pastor/shepherd. The common interpretation among Southern Baptists is that all three words refer to the office of pastor, but they reflect three different functions of that office. Dr. Herschel Hobbs in his book, What Baptists Believe, writes, “So the three words—elder, bishop, and pastor—refer to the same office, but to different functions within that office: elder (counsel, guidance); bishop (overseer or administrator); pastor (shepherd to feed, guard, and tend).” (86) Dr. Tom Schreiner, Professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Seminary, agrees, citing Dr. Ben Merkle, Professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Seminary. Dr. Schreiner in his commentary on 1 Peter in the New American Commentary, shares that Ben Merkle wrote his Southern Seminary PhD dissertation on elders and concluded that the three words refer to the same office. Schreiner affirms this interpretation. The note in the Criswell Study Bible says, “The terms are all synonymous in that they refer to the same office.”

Why do these scholars all agree? They all cite 1 Peter 5:1-4 and Acts 20:17 and 28.

See 1 Peter 5:1-4 (ESV)

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: ² shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;^[b] not for shameful gain, but eagerly; ³ not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. ⁴ And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

Notice the words: “elder, shepherd,” and “oversight,” are used in the same paragraph (pericope).

Acts 20:17 (ESV)

Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him.

Acts 20:28 (ESV)

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,^[a] which he obtained with his own blood.

The truth to notice here is that the Apostle Paul referred to this group of church leaders as “elders” in verse 17 and as “overseers” in verse 28. Paul clearly used the terms interchangeably.

In my opinion, the most common type of church leadership in the New Testament church was several bi-vocational elders serving a house church (Acts 20:20; Philemon 2). A key verse in this regard is Acts 14:23.

²³ And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (ESV)

For sure, we would like to have more information about the process that Paul and Barnabas used in “appointing” elders. Still, it is clear that they entrusted the care of the new churches to plural elders.

What were the responsibilities of the elders? John Hammett lists these in his book, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches. First, elders should preach and teach the Bible. Ephesians 4:11 refers to “pastor/teacher,” and 1 Timothy 3:2 instructs that a church overseer should be “able to teach.” Second, elders should do pastoral ministry. Paul mentioned this in Acts 20:28 when he exhorted the Ephesian elders to “shepherd” the church. This ministry involves comforting the sick and grieving, as well as counseling believers who are struggling. Third, the elders should lead the church. This means guiding the church to more effective ministry. A fourth responsibility is administration. The elders were responsible to see to the business affairs of the church. Hammett finally mentions a responsibility that is often overlooked, and that is to be a “good example” to the congregation and community.

Now, I used “elder” in the paragraphs above, but our readers should remember that I could have used “pastor” or “overseer” and been biblically correct.

SBC Voices readers, gird up your loins! In my next post I’ll write about “elder rule” and “elder leadership” in SBC churches today. You can argue the relative merits of elder rule as opposed to congregational rule. I’m hoping to learn from you all. I’ve never been a member of an elder-led church, so you can turn the tables and inform me.

Resources:

Criswell Study Bible When I want to know the traditional Southern Baptist view, I consult this study Bible.

John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (Kregel). Dr. Hammett has taught theology at Southeastern Baptist Seminary for many years.

Herschel H. Hobbs, What Baptists Believe (Broadman). Dr. Hobbs was the pastor at First Baptist Church in Oklahoma City for many years. Beyond that, he preached on the Baptist Hour radio broadcast for 30 years, served as President of the SBC, and chaired the SBC committee that revised the 1925 Baptist Statement of Faith and Message to become the 1963 version. He earned a PhD in New Testament from Southern Baptist Seminary, and he was “Mister Southern Baptist” when I was a young minister. This book is a commentary on the 1963 Statement of Faith and Message.

Stanton Norman, The Baptist Way (Broadman & Holman). Dr. Norman taught theology at New Orleans Baptist Seminary. He currently serves as president of Williams Baptist University in Arkansas.

In seminary (50+ years ago), my professors taught me there were three basic types of church polity (governance): episcopal (rule by bishop), presbyterian (rule by elders), and congregational (congregation self-rule). Denominations that employ the episcopal form of church government include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Church (among others). Denominations that use the presbyterian form include the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. Traditionally, Baptist and Bible churches have employed the congregational approach. Of course, many Southern Baptist churches use some form of the elder polity today, though that varies a lot from church to church. The rise of the non-denominational evangelical churches affects this considerably. Those churches govern themselves in various ways, though they do share church autonomy as a common denominator.

What Bible passages support the three historical church polities? The Roman Catholic Church cites Matthew 16:18-19.

¹⁸ And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock^[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed^[c] in heaven.” (ESV)

The Roman Catholics believe that by these words Jesus Christ made Peter the first bishop of Rome (pope). They further believe that Peter had the authority to ordain the bishop that followed him, and that man the next. Thus, you have apostolic succession, which means there is a line of properly ordained bishops that goes all the way back to Peter. They believe Christ entrusted the care and administration of His church to this unbroken line of bishops. To be accurate, the Catholics do cite the Matthew passage, but they also cite pronouncements from the Fathers of the Church and popes. These pronouncements form the Magisterium, which Catholics believe has as much authority as the Scriptures.

Presbyterian and Reformed denominations and churches are ruled by boards of elders. They base their practice on Acts 14:23.

²³ And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (ESV)

“They” in the verse above refers to Paul and Barnabas. On their first missionary journey, they planted churches in southern Asia Minor. Before they returned to Antioch of Syria, they visited the new churches and “appointed” elders to lead each church. In the New Testament (or apostolic) church, I believe most churches were led by several elders, sometimes referred to as “plural elders.” They served as bi-vocational church leaders. What complicates this picture a bit is the nature of the apostolic churches. They were house churches, not churches with buildings. So, the church in Corinth, for example, was a cluster of networked house churches each led by one or more bi-vocational elders, probably several.

Since 1900, Southern Baptist churches have mainly employed the congregational form of church polity. More than one Baptist writer has described a Baptist congregation as a “spiritual democracy.” Baptists find the biblical basis for their polity in Acts 6:1-6.

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists^[a] arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. ² And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. ³ Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. ⁴ But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” ⁵ And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. ⁶ These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. (ESV)

Advocates for congregational polity point out that the twelve Apostles recommended a course of action to “the full number of the disciples.” The believers affirmed the Apostles’ recommendation and chose seven men to lead the church’s benevolence ministry. When I was beginning in ministry, almost sixty years ago, nearly all SBC churches practiced congregational polity. I surely cannot make the same declaration now. In the past thirty years, many SBC churches have switched to some form of elder leadership or rule. I attribute this shift to the influence of the 9 Marks organization and Southern Baptist Seminary. Mark Dever, founder of 9 Marks, and his associates have promoted elder leadership. The same is true for Southern Baptist Seminary. The faculty there teach the superiority of elder leadership and encourage their students to implement that in the churches they will serve.

Well, which approach to polity is better? It depends on whom you ask. I once consulted Dr. John Polhill about the main form of polity found in the New Testament. My friend, John Polhill, taught New Testament and Greek at Southern Seminary for 40 years, and he wrote the commentary on Acts in the New American Commentary. He replied that there are three forms of polity mentioned in the New Testament, and that is why we see a variety of polities today. So, back to my question. Which is best? Personally, I favor the congregational approach, probably because that is what I’m used to. I’ve never been part of a church with elders, so I don’t have any personal experience. I’m hoping some of our readers will share their experiences. Also, be aware that I plan to write my next post about church elders. So, stay tuned for that.

Recently, someone asked me about the crowns mentioned in the New Testament. That is, my friend wanted to learn about the crowns a believer might receive. His question prompted me to do some research, and I thought I would share my findings with you.

“Crown” in the New Testament (stephanos in Greek) can refer to a king’s golden crown or to the woven leaf crown an athlete received for winning a competition. Of course, we all recall that the Roman soldiers crowned Jesus Christ with a crown of thorns. The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary states that the crowns mentioned in the New Testament have a “figurative significance,” which means the crowns are symbolic, not physical crowns.

What crowns might a Christian receive? There are five different crowns listed in the New Testament:

The Imperishable Crown (1 Corinthians 9:25-27, NKJV)

²⁵ And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. ²⁶ Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus, I fight: not as one who beats the air. ²⁷ But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

The Lord awards this crown to believers who live the Christian life with discipline and perseverance. Like champion athletes they train diligently and discipline themselves in order to win the prize—not a leafy crown that will wither, but a crown that will never fade. These believers avoid any activity that would compromise their Christian walk.

The Crown of Rejoicing (1 Thessalonians 2:19-20, NKJV)

¹⁹ For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Is it not even you in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming? ²⁰ For you are our glory and joy.

Philippians 4:1

Therefore, my beloved and longed-for brethren, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, beloved.

Paul evangelized in both Philippi and Thessalonica on his second missionary journey. In these verses he describes the fruit of his evangelistic ministry as his glory and joy. Thus, this crown will be awarded to believers who have won people to Christ. You might call it the “soul winner’s crown.”

The Crown of Righteousness (2 Timothy 4:7–8, NKJV)

⁷ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. ⁸ Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.

Paul often used athletic metaphors in his epistles, and so it is here. He compares himself to an athlete who has finished and won his race. Now, he’s waiting for the award ceremony. The crown he’ll receive honors him for finishing his life of service and doing so in “good” fashion. Thankfully, he adds that any Christian can receive this crown by faithfully serving the Lord and longing for the Lord’s appearing.

The Crown of Life (James 1:12, NKJV)

¹² Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.

Revelation 2:10, NKJV

¹⁰ Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

The Lord will award this crown to believers who resist temptation (James 1:12) and those who endure persecution, even unto death. Some commentators call this “the martyr’s crown.” Those who die for the Lord will receive this crown.

If you find yourself in Richmond, Virginia, I would encourage you to visit the International Mission Board’s International Learning Center (ILC). This is where the IMB trains new missionaries. The ILC is located in Rockville, about 10 miles outside of Richmond. In the ILC is a long gallery that features many brass plaques on the wall. On each plaque is engraved the name of an IMB missionary who died, serving the Lord overseas. You can find Lottie Moon’s plaque and you can find the plaques of missionaries I served with, like Randy and Kathy Arnett. Those who were “faithful until death” will receive this special crown, the “crown of life.”

The Unfading Crown of Glory (1 Peter 5:1–4, NJKV)

The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: ² Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but ^[a]willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; ³ nor as being ^[b]lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; ⁴ and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.

This passage applies to elders/pastors who shepherd God’s flock willingly and faithfully rather than for financial rewards. If they serve their congregations faithfully and set a good example, they will receive the “crown of glory” that does not wither like an athletic crown.

When and where will believers receive these crowns? The New Testament does not specify the time and place, but I believe these crowns will be presented at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Second Corinthians 5:10 states, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. That each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (NKJV) Again, this is my opinion, not an explicit biblical teaching.

It is important to understand these crowns are not like merit badges that Boy Scouts earn. I was a Boy Scout, and I remember meeting a boy at a Boy Scout Jamboree who had a sash covered with merit badges. No, you shouldn’t think you can receive all five.

What shall believers do with their crowns? A common idea is that Christians will cast (or lay) their crowns at Jesus’ feet. This comes from Revelation 4:10—“The twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne.” (NKJV) This verse speaks of the twenty-four elders doing the casting, but it does not mention the saints. It’s not hard to imagine faithful Christians following their example in casting their crowns at the feet of Jesus, but that’s reading into the text. Nevertheless, the focus in heaven will not be on Christians comparing crowns but rather on praising Jesus Christ, giving Him the honor and glory.

Let me begin with a personal thank you and a personal note. I owe Dave Miller a big thank you for posting my essays. Most of the Voices writers post their own, but I’m technologically impaired. So, Dave does it for me. Thanks, Dave. I mentioned that my dear wife was recovering from a broken shoulder, suffered in a fall at our home. I’m glad to report that her bones have healed, and she’s doing well. She’s still receiving physical therapy to regain strength and range of motion.

In my recent post on Baptist Distinctives, I listed local church autonomy. I thought it would be helpful to expand on that topic. This is especially true because most of those opposed to Dr. Al Mohler’s “Unifying Amendment” mentioned local church autonomy.

What does “autonomy” mean, anyway? It’s not a word we use regularly in conversation. My American Heritage Dictionary defines “autonomy” as “self-government.” It defines “autonomous” as “self-governing.”  You won’t find the word “autonomous” in the Bible. I know; I checked an exhaustive concordance, and I did not find the word used in the Bible. It is mentioned in the Southern Baptist Statement of Faith and Message. In the article on The Church, we read: “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers….” In my post on Baptist Distinctives, I explained autonomy thus—“each local congregation is autonomous. That means the church governs itself under the headship of Jesus Christ. In other words, Jesus Christ is head of the church. Neither the SBC nor a state convention nor a local association can order a church to do anything. The church calls its own pastor, determines its own statement of faith, and voluntarily associates/cooperates with whichever entity it chooses.”

What does this mean in practice? First, each Baptist church chooses it own pastor, staff, and lay leaders. Second, each church determines its own statement of faith, covenant, and constitution and by-laws. The majority of SBC churches have adopted the Baptist Statement of Faith and Message (2000) as their statement of faith, but not all. I know churches that use the 1963 Statement of Faith, and others have written their own statement of faith. Third, each church decides for itself about joining the local Baptist association, the state Baptist convention, and the national Southern Baptist Convention. A church could be a member of the local association but not the state or national convention. I knew a church once that was disfellowshipped by its local association, but the church continued as a member of the state convention and SBC.

Fourth, each church determines for itself whether to support financially the ministries of the association, state convention, and SBC. Those entities cannot require a church to give a certain amount or percentage. The churches give voluntarily and in the amounts they choose. Further, churches decide for themselves whether to participate in projects undertaken by a Baptist entity. For example, a local association might decide to sponsor simultaneous revivals in its member churches. Nevertheless, each church would decide whether to hold a revival or not.

The principle of autonomy applies to all levels of Southern Baptist life. An association cannot dictate to a church, and the state convention cannot dictate to an association. The SBC might urge the state conventions to all join in a national effort, but the SBC cannot require them to do so. The principle here is voluntary cooperation. The SBC system depends on voluntary cooperation. Of course, the venerable Cooperative Program provides the funds necessary for state conventions and the national convention.

What would happen if a church went “rogue”? I’ve used this example in my seminary classes. Under its autonomy, a Southern Baptist church could call a Mormon to serve as its pastor. What could the local association do? The associational leaders could and would urge the church to reconsider. If the church rejected that plea, the association could disfellowship (expel) the church from the association, but that’s about all it could do. The same holds true for the state and national convention.

My wife and I attended the SBC Annual Meeting in St. Louis in 1980. During a business session, a messenger moved that the SBC ban the election of denominational entity staff members to serve as messengers to the convention meeting. That would mean that a professor at Southern Baptist Seminary could not be chosen as a messenger from his local church in Louisville. Herschel H. Hobbs (Mr. Southern Baptist in those days) went to a microphone and asked to be recognized. He declared, “I object to this motion. It infringes upon the autonomy of the local church.” I turned to my wife and said, “That motion is dead as a doornail.” Sure enough, it was soundly defeated upon voting.

The one messenger who was allowed to speak against the “Unity Amendment” at this year’s SBC meeting mentioned local church autonomy. However, the messengers seemed not to agree because they passed Dr. Mohler’s amendment decisively.

What are your thoughts and questions on church autonomy?