ekklesia-a reformed Baptist who breaks the stereotype

This is a long post, but its shorter than the 5 articles i'm condensing.

He loves the form of the church though admits its lack of description in the Bible.
"Some people refuse to be a vital part of a congregation of Christians. They feel they are 'giving up their liberty' when they officially join a group of Christians and submit to their love and discipline. What liberty do they give up? Do they have the liberty to divorce themselves from 'the people of Christ' in their locality and not meet and worship with them? I don't think so. I am spiritually joined to all those who are also joined to Christ our common Lord. Every member of His body is my brother or sister. Do the NTS tell me to do certain things that can only be done by my being a member of a gathered group of His sheep? Yes. Do I have the liberty to be a spiritual lone wolf responsible to no other human beings? Where do the NTS give me the liberty to think and act as if I owe nothing to the ekklesia of Christ in my area? What do the many "one another" passages mean unless I am associated with other sheep?

Should a group of Christ's sheep, if they grow in numbers, call a man to act as their pastor? I would say, in most cases, "Yes," even though we do not have any examples in the NTS of any ekklesia either calling or ordaining a pastor. I remember the first Baptist ordination service that I attended. The chairman kept waving the Bible and saying, "We Baptists go by the Book." However, the man never once opened the Book to justify a single thing that we did. Should believers organize into a 'visible' group, write a constitution, vote to receive people into their fellowship who show evidence of conversion, and vote to dismiss members who live in deliberate disobedience to the beliefs of the group. I would say 'yes' to all of these things. However, I must add, I do not have a text of Scripture to prove any of those things and the fact I do not have a text does not bother me at all.

I can hear the institutionalist cocking his guns. You see, his whole position is built on believing that the NTS give us a clear outline of how to organize a true ekklesia, how it should be operated, what kind of government it should follow, who should be in charge, and how it should worship. In this person's mind it is inconceivable that there is no clear form of church government in the NTS. I believe there are clear principles but few absolutes. One thing I am sure aboutthere is no role model institutional ekklesia in the NTS. Such a statement is viewed as "doubting the sufficiency of the Word of God." I call this the 'true church syndrome.' It is a giant myth. There simply is no one clear role model institutional church in the NTS. A lot of the things that every group of believers does "in their church" is based on pure pragmatism and there is nothing at all wrong with that as long as none of it contradicts Scripture."


But he rails against the institutional church.

"The Plymouth Brethren magnify the universal/invisible concept. They insist the ekklesia is 'an organism' and not an 'organization.' They have no church membership (on paper), and no 'ordained clergyman.' Roman Catholicism and Landmark Baptists emphasize the local/visible concept of ekklesia. In their view the ekklesia is a visible physical organization, instead of an invisible organism, instituted by Christ and left in control of duly authorized leaders here on earth. Landmark Baptists call the universal ekklesia concept the 'doctrine of the great spiritual whore,' and Rome insists that one of the four marks of 'one the true church' is that the true church is 'visible.'" previous article

"In this Roman view, the only criterion that establishes who is truly called of God is the individual's relationship to the authority vested in the local church. This mentality cannot help but treat the local church as Christ's true and only Vicar on earth. Since this view usually insists that the "authority" is in the elders (often only one, the pastor), the end result means the pastor is Christ's Vicar. In such a system the "Lord of the church" is really the pastor.

The New Testament Scriptures will not allow us to separate the work of the Spirit and the Church of Christ in this way, but the institutionalist is often forced to do this very thing. It is local church order and authority that concerns him. He is more concerned with the "church" (institution) than he is with the obvious and genuine work of the Holy Spirit (the reality of God's presence in people).

In the eyes of the institutionalist, the worst sins are those that challenge the "duly authorized" forms, ceremonies, traditions, or leadership of "Christ's duly authorized Church." It does not matter how powerfully the Holy Spirit of God is applying the truth to hearts, the institutionalist only recognizes the outward form and order. It is easy to see why an institutionalist must become a legalist regardless of how hard he tries to avoid it. What the Scriptures call love and tolerance, the institutionalist must view as compromise with clear truth (his system). It is tragic but true. It is tragic because some great and Godly men have sincerely shed their blood and destroyed churches over secondary principles and thought they were doing God a favor even while they swung the sword in "holy zeal" for the "cause of truth."

An illustration of the inability of the institutionalist to accept the work of God's Spirit outside the "duly authorized" local church was the "scandal" created by George Whitfield when he had communion in the open field and many pastors from various denominational backgrounds helped to serve it. Thousands attended and revival took place in the fields but many said, "It cannot be of God," because it was not under the control and authority of any institutional church. A true institutionalist had no choice but to denounce Whitfield and refuse to have anything to do with his "free lance" ministry. Would to God that He would raise up some more freelance rebels like Whitfield and William Carey in our day. John Bunyan was hated and denounced by the Baptists because he refused to make baptism necessary for "church communion." Baptist publishers are still condemning his article "Differences in Judgment About Water Baptism No Bar To Communion."

If you had been a hostage several years ago in Iran and once a month all of the Christians had been allowed to get together for one hour, would you have considered it proper to take bread and wine and have a remembrance service of the blessed Savior? Or would you have refused because some of those participating had never been immersed? Would you have insisted that the Lord's Table is really the local church's table and since this group of believers was not a "duly authorized" church you therefore could not participate? Would such a service be un-biblical if there had been no "ordained elder" present to "consecrate" the elements?

Some institutionalist cringe at the clear implications of their position when it is worked out in real life, but the true institutionalist will say without shame, "Amen!" I might say that the latter is the one being honest with his presuppositions. All "true" Reformed Baptists hold that there is no "authority" outside the local church. They would never say there is no salvation outside the church, but their basic mentality and view of authority is Roman Catholic. As already mentioned, all you have to do is replace the word salvation with the word authority in the quotation from Warfield and you have the view vehemently preached and practiced by many Baptists today. Often I have heard young zealots denounce what appeared to be a real movement of God's Spirit simply because the group or man was not "under the authority of a local church." If Christ established a clear institutional role model church, then the young zealots may be correct and I am fighting against God's clear truth."

i know no one reads blog posts this long but i think the emergent revolutionary heartily agrees with this problem,
"(3) The authority is always in the office and often has little or nothing to do with either the ability or character of the individual. A general who is an idiot has as much authority as a genius. The Pope or pastor has the full 'authority of his office' regardless of whether he is capable or not. Rome is not the only religious organization with egg on its face because of either stupidity or tyranny being 'clothed with Divine authority.'"

further on he says,
"The obvious question is, "What do the Scriptures say?" Our answer will always be determined by our basic presuppositions concerning the nature and function of the church. The New Testament Scriptures are not abundantly clear on this subject. The Apostles do not give us a role model institutional church. It gives us basic principles. Neither a Roman Catholic nor a Puritan would view leadership and authority in the ekklesia of Christ the same way an Anabaptist would. Rome believes that Christ 'founded a church' and endowed it with the authority to be His sole representative on earth. Outside of that church there is neither salvation nor authority. The Pope, as the head of the Roman system, is Christ's Vicar on earth. The man in control, the Pope, regardless of who he may be, is infallible in his pronouncements and is responsible to no human authority. He has this authority purely on the grounds of his office. Whenever we view the church as primarily an institution endowed with exclusive authority because it has been 'duly authorized and constituted' by God, we have already taken the first step toward the Roman Catholic view of authority....


(1) Both the membership in a congregation and the individual's relationship with the leaders must be based on mutual consent. Our only weapons or bands that bind people are truth and love.

(2) There should always be a plurality of leadership to avoid the ever-present danger of popery.

(3) Leaders must be accountable to someone beside themselves. Every human being should be responsible in some way to other human beings. This is not possible if we reject both congregationalism and a Presbytery. To reject both of these things is to literally create an untouchable pope and make real accountability impossible.

(4) However, plurality and equality are two different things. Equality of eldership is a figment of idealistic imagination. Every congregation has one pastor whether it admits to that fact or not. Every group, whether in the secular world, the religious world, or in the animal barn yard has a 'pecking order.' A congregation with two 'equal' pastors is like a wife with two husbands.

The pastor's submission to both the church and the other elders is in no way contrary to what I just said. Likewise, the pastor being the spiritual leader is not inconsistent with his being under human authority. A true pastor is both the leader and a servant at the same time. There is equality of eldership in that the pastor gets one vote in the elder's meeting. If he gets outvoted, then he submits. However, there is not equality in ministry and gifts, especially in preaching. Likewise, each elder does not get equal time every time he disagrees with something the pastor preached. The preaching pastor exerts by far the most influence in a congregation but must not have any more raw authority than anyone else.

(5) One man being recognized and accepted as the pastor in no way destroys the priesthood of believers. We strongly affirm that every believer is a priest before God and called to minister with the pastor. However, their respective ministries are not the same. Every believer is not a preacher anymore than every pastor is an apostle. The 'priesthood of believers' must not become the 'priesthood of preachers.' The fact that all believers are priests before God does not mean that all believers are leaders before men...


(7) We must not confuse responsibility with authority or raw power. The NT Scriptures do not in any sense emphasize 'office and authority.' They speak of people, gifts, and responsibility. Eldership is not an office as much as it is a function, just as the church is more a spiritual organism than it is a physical institution. The church has distinct institutional functions, just as a pastor has 'official duties.' However, when the emphasis is placed first on the 'institution' and the 'office,' we are starting at the wrong end. A leader that continually reminds us that he has 'authority' is really proving that he has no God-given authority at all. His constant exhortations to "submit to God's duly-authorized elder" prove that he is not a true leader of Christ's sheep. He is a thief who is attempting to drive the sheep away from Christ and draw them unto himself.

(8) A true leader has several clear marks. First, he has followers. Anyone who thinks he is a leader need only turn around and see if anyone is there. If no one is following, then the person is not a leader. However, that is not enough for the Christian. All leaders do not lead us in the same direction or to the same place. The test of a true Christian leader is whether he is first a follower himself and if he is following the right Person. A Christian leader cannot say, 'Follow me,' unless he finishes the statement, 'as I follow Christ.' We dare not say, 'Do this because I have authority to make you do it.' We must say, "Do this because your Lord, in this text of Scripture, has commanded you." In one sense, we have no followers of ourselves. We are all followers of the Lamb. Leaders are merely pilgrims helping other pilgrims following the same Lord. "

in the 4th article he states
"If, by the word church you mean a physical organization that was organized and operated exactly like yours, or, put another way, if you mean that Christ established a specific organization that would perpetuate itself and gave that one organization and its leaders the 'duly authorized authority' to be His vicar on earth, then the answer is an emphatic NO—Christ did not 'found, institute, or establish,' that kind of an organized institution with that kind of authority. He did begin to save a people and give those people His Holy Spirit. He also gave Apostles to guide them as well as begin the job of evangelizing the world with the gospel. The same Apostles were inspired to write epistles that gave those people (and us today) principles and guidelines on how to get along with each other as they served their one Lord. However, He did not 'institute' a physical organization and 'endow it with authority' to be His vicar on earth. That is pure Romanism regardless of what label you put on it."
he continues
"My philosophy teacher in college once said, "A philosopher is a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat, that is not there." In our present discussion, I believe 'the black cat that isn't there' in the Scripture is the clear role model of the physical organization that men call the true New Testament Church when referring to a local assembly (their own) of believers. There just is no such animal in the New Testament Scriptures. I totally reject the two basic assumptions mentioned at the beginning of this article. The institutionalist is wholeheartedly convinced that he has found the cat that is not there.

I have added a little to that philosophy teacher's bit of wisdom. I have found that the most narrow-minded separatists are the people who sincerely believe that they have actually caught the cat that is not there. They really believe that their particular church is in all points like the one 'true N.T. role model church established by Christ' and found in the New Testament Scriptures! These people usually accuse all who disagree with them of rejecting the authority of the Word of God and following 'pragmatism and expediency.' Sometimes we rebels are granted the license of pure ignorance or stupidity. However, the usual charge is deliberate unbelief in 'God's clearly revealed truth.'

The 'true N. T. church' mind-set will always bear the same fruit. There will be a near total emphasis on the local church as an organization and a neglect of the Christian community as a whole. The consuming passion will be to have the right kind of officers exercising total authority and control. There will always be a wide gap between the leaders (usually called elders) and the ordinary Christians (usually called lay persons), and only the 'duly authorized officers' are capable of doing anything spiritual. Wherever these things take a hold, a church will move toward a Roman Catholic concept of authority. "

and more
"A strong Baptist once said to me, "Show me one instance in the N.T. Scriptures where a person joined a local church before he was baptized as a believer." I replied, "You show me one instance in the New Testament Scriptures where someone joined a local church after he was baptized as a believer." I told the man that his question was a nonsense question and the answer would prove absolutely nothing since he was using a 'joining the church' concept that is not found in the N.T. Scriptures. Believers did not 'join' the church; they were in the church the moment they were born of God! Christ's Church existed before any institution was organized."

he concludes
"There are many conscientious Christians in rigid, institutional congregations that are sick of the 'we four/no more' mentality that has destroyed any meaningful fellowship with other believers because 'these people are not really in our camp.' These Christians are tired of seeing the Arminians get all the converts while their own local church efforts consists of witnessing Calvinism and 'true church' doctrine to these 'immature and untaught victims of easy-believism.' I believe I speak to many hearts that long to see sinners saved and changed in their own assembly, instead of wistfully seeing it happen in other places—and bravely trying, in vain, to justify why it is not happening in their own assembly. Is your heart and conscience asking the following question: "If our church has the most truth and the only true biblical authority, why doesn't God use us to save His true sheep instead of using those people that we are constantly opposing and criticizing?"

Maybe the answer to that question is far more obvious that many of us have been willing to admit. Maybe the people and churches that have been criticized for not preaching 'the true gospel' have at least faithfully preached the gospel as they understood it. Is it not a fact that these people preach the Lord Jesus Christ Himself as the only way to be saved, and do they not also urge sinners to flee to Him for salvation? Must we not also admit that many of our 'true New Testament churches' have made the establishing of 'the one true institutional church' to be the primary goal of their preaching and practice? And is it not also tragically true that these same 'true' churches have miserably failed to (1) preach the gospel to the sinners in their own immediate area, or (2) heal and help the wounded sheep under their own care?

I do not attend your church and therefore have neither the right nor the ability to judge it. However, you have both the ability and the responsibility before God to judge whether your church is more interested in the souls of men, or if its primary concern is the 'authority' of the church and its leadership! You are responsible to your Lord to judge if your church exhibits the love of Christ, the fruits of the Spirit, and is genuinely interested in people, or whether your church is primarily interested in church order, the authority of the elders, and criticizing everyone for 'false evangelism' while you have no real evangelistic effort to reach the lost."