I have also noted a number of questions from Roman Catholics regarding ecclesiastical polity. Most are directed toward Presbyterianism, but by way of reply from a Baptist perspective:
1. Presbyterians and "plural elder" Baptists differ over the distinction between "ruling" and "teaching" elders. In Baptist plural elder churches, all elders teach. That's the main difference at that level.
2. Baptists themselves who employ this model function on either an "elder rule" model or with "a shared responsibility with the congregation" (as Mark Dever's) model. I would add that Baptist single pastor/elder model churches use a board of deacons that does not really functionally differ from this model. It's really @ the deacon level that the differences play out. There are those who opt for a corporation-like model, usually in the largest churches. I have strong problems with this latter model, which, at this time, I'll waive discussing.
3. When it all cashes out, Presbyterian and Baptist polity really don't differ much internally. It's at the external level that we differ. Presbyterians operate with sessions, presbyteries, and assemblies so that the elders of one local church wind up having authority over and in another local church. Baptists are either independent altogether or function in associations. Conventions are slightly different structures, but they cash out as big associations.
4. The local church is independent and autonomous of the association, and, in conventioning churches, the churches, associations, state and national conventions are all independent.
i. However, these days if you don't give money to the state, you can't be seated @ the convention (either one).
ii. Churches must join the association in most cases to join the state convention (eg. to join one is to join the other), but they need not contribute to the association's activity, but it's not a good idea not to do so without good reason.
5. Baptists are somewhat divided over the role of the association. If you ask me this is a a weak point in Baptist ecclesiology. We need a clear theology of the association. I'd like to see a book devoted to this subject.
The Sandy Creek Association, according to G.W. Paschal, was quite high handed. The Charleston Association's Book of Discipline was less so. P. H. Mell's view was, if you ask me, even looser. The SBC has chosen to follow Mell's thinking in this regard. As a result local church autonomy has been abused far too much. This is unacceptable. I've written on this before.
6. Founders.org contains a repository of information collected by Mark Dever that many have forgotten. If they have questions, I'd refer them there. In addition, see John L. Dagg's work.
Re: your point 5, check out James M. Renihan's PhD dissertation: _The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists_ (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1997). It has quite a bit of primary documentation of Baptist associations as they were implemented in the 17th century. Much of the research was done at the Angus Library at Regents Park College, Oxford.
ReplyDeleteI heard Tom Nettles liked it :-)
Likewise, Dr. Renihan wrote a pamphlet put out from Reformed Baptist Publications called "A Tale of Two Associations" in which he discusses a particular historical issue, and I believe also makes a case for associations.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I have always thought that, for those of us Baptists who do believe in associations (my church is part of F.I.R.E. and helped start it), there really isn't much difference between that and the Presbyterian court-of-appeals type system. We have kicked out churches from F.I.R.E. before (such as New Covenant Fellowship in Arizona for denying the imputation of the active obedience of our Savior), and Presbyterianism kicks out churches who deviate doctrinally as well. But more than that, I'm not sure if many Presbyterian synods (and even general assemblies) really follow closely their own system. After all, the OPC supposedly does not allow paedocommunionist elders, but I know of one teaching elder of an OPC church who is indeed paedocommunionist, and even helped write a report FOR it.
Perhaps I am missing something, but if there is really much difference between our Baptist associations and Presbyterian court-of-appeals theology, please help me understand.
My impression is that the major ecclesiological difference between Baptists and Presbyterians is not over polity, but over the relation between the visible and invisible sides of the church. Presbyterians, given their commitment to infant baptism, put rather more distance between the visible and invisible sides of the church. They automatically count the children of believers as church members for purposes of baptism—even though children of believers aren’t automatically elect. That, therefore, erects a principled distinction between election and church membership—with an emphasis on the visible church as the point of reference.
ReplyDeleteBaptists (especially Reformed Baptists), by contrast, try as much as possible to conform the visible church to the ideal of the invisible church. A body of true believers (or the elect). They accentuate the invisible church as their point of reference. The visible church is the true church inasmuch as it approximates the invisible church.
To that extent, the respective ecclesiology of the two groups is conditioned or controlled by their respective sacramentology. The identity of the church is bound up with who is eligible for baptism—and communion (in the case of paedocommunion).
The distinction between presbyterial and congregational governance is secondary to this deeper doctrinal principle of individuation and differentiation.