On the Baptist Church Committee System

I enjoy college football very much. I will watch any college football game on any day and often lose entire Saturdays to random games with inconsequential outcomes.[1] As all college football fans are aware, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system that is currently used to “determine” the national champion is being replaced with a 4-team playoff. The selection of these four teams will be up to a 13-member committee.

One storyline coming out of the transition from the BCS to the playoff system has been the inclusion of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as one of the committee members. Some sports commentators have criticized Rice’s inclusion on such an important committee, claiming that Dr. Rice has no experience in the game of football and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to make judgments about which four teams are the best.[2] Rice responded to the criticism by saying that she is a “student of the game.”[3]

This committee is important to me as a college football fan. Rice’s inclusion will certainly influence the outcome of the college football season. Should a non-player be included? Should a woman be included? Many of the opinions on this issue have revealed sexist perspectives or, at the very least, the notion that a person cannot make informed decisions about something like college football without having actually played college football.

 The discussion of Rice’s inclusion in the committee got me thinking about the importance of committees in Baptist congregations and the decisions we make regarding who should serve on certain committees in our fellowships. We annually place people on committees that manage ministries and the administration of the church, but what are we requiring of the people who serve on those committees?

I am fortunate to be involved in two congregations that have excellent committee structures. Northminster Baptist Church is a committee-led congregation in the strongest sense of the word; the ministerial staff is beholden to the committees of the church and the committees take their responsibilities seriously. Madison Chapel has a strong tradition of whole-church decision-making (because of its small size). The ability to come together as an entire congregation to prayerfully decide congregational action is impractical in larger churches, but for our small fellowship it is a wonder to behold.

I have worked with churches that had relatively impotent committees, non-meeting committees, and too many committees. In one case the congregation decided to make a rule that a person could only serve on one committee per year, which necessitated the reduction of the number of committees by half!

The committee structure of Baptist churches is often at odds with other powers in the congregation, especially the deacon body or the pastor. There are certainly faithful Baptist churches that are led by strong elder or deacon groups that function as a board of directors. Similarly there are Baptist churches that function well with authoritarian CEO-style pastors who determine many of the church’s decisions.[4] There is certainly Biblical precedent for many types of church organization, so let us not be too hasty to either condemn or condone one form over another.

For Baptists, church organization and polity is based upon the principle of the Priesthood of the Believer.[5] Since we assume that the gift of salvation is offered to all and that the Spirit of God is pored out on all people who believe on Jesus Christ for salvation, the Church must be the collection of those people gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ to do the work of God’s Kingdom in a specific place and time. The Church is, therefore, an exercise in democracy: with Christ as the head of the congregation and the members rendered equal by the outpouring of the Spirit we gather to make decisions as peers.

Direct democracy is cumbersome and slow, though, and often impractical. Baptists have adopted the practice of forming committees to deal with certain aspects of congregational life, ranging from bereavement and ministerial visitation to figuring out who should mow the lawn. These committees are formed out of the congregation and are beholden (usually) to that congregation rather than to the pastor or the deacons.

So who serves on our committees? In a perfect church I suppose the committees would be made up of the wisest, most mature, most committed members of the congregation. What I have found, though, is that in many cases the committees are filled with the first people who agreed to serve. Further, in smaller churches people are required to serve on multiple committees because of a simple lack of numbers.

A fellow pastor told me a story over lunch recently about one experience he had with a committee in his church.[6] A group in his congregation had been tasked with the formulation of a statement of faith that was more appropriate and relevant to the congregation than the one presently in the church’s Constitution. After weeks of non-discussion and no action to revise or create that statement, the pastor commented to the committee that they “just don’t care.” He was right. Even on an issue as fundamental as the development of a statement of faith so little enthusiasm was mustered that the issue died on the committee floor.

Our committee structure is a good thing. As Baptists emphasize the Priesthood of the Believer we quickly emphasize congregational church governance. The two go hand-in-hand. What is also necessary to emphasize, though, is the essential nature of Christian discipleship in the Priesthood of the Believer and therefore in our Baptist church polity.

A Baptist church committee can only function in so far as its members have set themselves to the difficult process of maturation in Christian faith and life. There is a direct correlation between the effectiveness (I dare say relevance) of a committee and its members’ relative spiritual maturity. Yes, we could make the church finance committee be nothing but expert accountants and financial managers. But unless these individuals have committed themselves to following the Lord in ever-increasing knowledge and development, they will miss the true nature of a church’s mission and therefore miss the point entirely of serving on a congregational committee.

If a congregation’s committees are weak or ineffective, perhaps we should emphasize discipleship and the clear call to progressive maturity in faith demonstrated in the Scriptures.[7] Only through the spiritual maturity of the constituent members of a committee can that body truly serve the good of Christ’s church.

Further, let us take seriously the selection of committee members in our congregations. If these committees are important, then the selection of their membership should be important.[8] Not everyone who has balanced a checkbook is spiritually prepared to serve on the finance committee, and likewise a person should not be excluded if they don’t have a degree in finance. Our spiritual maturity as disciples should be the guiding principle in our selection committee members rather than our ability to find volunteers.

Cooler heads have prevailed in the case of Dr. Rice serving on the college football selection committee. Although she has defended her inclusion based upon her knowledge of the game, such excuses are irrelevant. Dr. Rice should be included in the decision making process because she has proven her maturity in making important, difficult decisions. She has demonstrated an ability to evaluate the facts and to make informed choices without being distracted by the passion that I would certainly have were I on that committee.[9]

We must seek maturity in our committee members because it is those who have been discipled by the church the most who are best equipped to make decisions on behalf of that church.

---

[1] However, Sic ‘Em Bears!

[2] http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9830542/condoleezza-rice-officially-college-football-playoff-committee.

[3] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131016/condoleezza-rice-college-football-playoff/. See also http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/16/college-football-playoff-committee-includes-condol/

[4] The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) has been interpreted in ways that contribute to the Pastor-as-CEO model of church governance. There is no language in that document concerning a committee structure in a congregation; such language and direction is usually present in a congregation’s Constitution and By-Laws.

[5] See Leonard, Bill J., Baptist Ways. Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 2003.

[6] It was at McAllister’s, and was very tasty.

[7] For more on this progression of discipleship, see me recently posted work on Catechesis as Discipleship.

[8] An argument can be made that serving on a committee is an act of discipleship whereby less mature members can be compelled to grow through their service. This is certainly true, but for growth to occur there needs to be a critical mass of relatively mature members on the committee to disciple the less mature members throughout the year.

[9] Again, Sic ‘Em Bears!

Apparently I'm Not a Baptist

I learned today, somewhat to my surprise, that I’m not a Baptist. The surprise came because I’m an ordained Baptist minister, a graduate of a Baptist Seminary, the son of a Baptist pastor, the grandson of a Baptist pastor, and because I have 31 years of experience in Baptist life. I learned the hard way, though, that these things are not enough to make one a Baptist, much to my chagrin.

The source of my revelation was an article[1] by Dr. Kevin McFadden, formerly of Louisiana College. He was one of the three professors at that school who had their contracts “not renewed,” a thinly veiled attempt to fire those who didn’t toe the political line of the administration and trustees of LC. His firing is unfortunate and demonstrates the continuing cannibalistic nature of fundamentalism in the SBC. Once the moderates were excluded, there was nothing left to do other than to exclude those who were less doctrinally pure than those in power. McFadden was let go because he held to a particular theological position that is well within the bounds of Orthodox Baptist life, namely Calvinism. However, it has been made clear by reports in Baptist media and from personal conversations with at least one now-disenfranchised Trustee of LC that politics was the issue more than theology.

Yet it is theology that McFadden claims to be the cause of his dismissal. In his article the professor explains a three-tiered approach to theology. His hope is to demonstrate that there are some things at the foundational level of faith, specifically, those things that lead to Christian orthodoxy. The other two levels of theology are, in McFadden’s mind, less important than the first. He comments, “Not every disagreement over doctrine is important. Some are more important than others.” He leaves room for disagreement over non-essential doctrines, which is essentially his plea for academic freedom in his now-vacant post at LC.

McFadden’s argument betrays his position, though. He contends that Calvinism (not Hyper-Calvinism, which he claims is not an authentic Baptist position) is Biblical and in line with historic Baptist principles. However, to support this position McFadden does not rely on Calvin, Zwingly, Luther, Mullins, or even Scripture to make his point; rather he relies on his theological position being consonant with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. He says, “The Baptist Faith and Message comes from a line of Calvinist confessions, rooted in the Second London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is our theological history as Southern Baptists. Our confession has been modified over the years to allow views that don’t fit strictly within the Reformed tradition, but it was certainly never modified to exclude Calvinists, because the current revision of the Baptist Faith and Message included five-point Calvinists on the committee. You can be a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist and be a Southern Baptist. Both views are permitted under the umbrella of our confession.”

This is an unfortunate move, but it is telling of McFadden’s real point. McFadden and the other professors who were let go are victims of political maneuvering rather than theological boundary setting. By relying on the BF&M McFadden is attempting to restore his SBC orthodoxy in the eyes of those who fired him.

Here’s where I learned that I’m not a Baptist. In his argument about theology (which is really about politics within the Convention), McFadden describes his position within the faculty of LC. He says, “…not every teacher at Louisiana College has to agree with the second level doctrines—that is, you don’t have to be a Baptist to teach here. However, to teach in the religion department, you have to agree with everything in the Baptist Faith and Message. In other words, you have to be a Baptist.” To be a Baptist, therefore, is to adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message, and to be a Baptist professor at LC is to teach from that perspective.

As a believer who cannot place a “confession” over the Spirit-revealed truth of Scripture that is expressed and made real in the person of Jesus Christ, I have a hard time framing my life of faith in terms of the BF&M, especially on the sections that are contrary to historic Baptist principles of church polity and autonomy. I must, therefore, not be a Baptist.

In a pitiful attempt to reclaim some ground in the eyes of his political persecutors McFadden comments “the Baptist Faith and Message explains the doctrines which are important for us to agree upon so that we can work together in churches and as a denomination. It also allows disagreement on other doctrines that are not as important. It protects us from forcing others to agree with our theological pet-peeves and from being forced to agree with the theological pet-peeves of others.” Unfortunately, as he demonstrated in his citations of Creedal statements in his article, pet peeves are the forte of such statements. As he has learned the hard way, theological orthodoxy is a fire that will burn even those who think they are a part of the pure crowd.

Maybe I can still be a Baptist in spite of McFadden’s confession that to be a Baptist means to adhere to the BF&M. Maybe he meant that you can’t be a Southern Baptist without such slavish adherence. Certainly there are faithful Baptists who thrive in both ecclesial and academic circles without need for that document!

I find confidence in the fact that I can be a Baptist without the BF&M, and, in fact, can be a more spiritually and intellectually honest one in such a state. The real issue here is not theology, creedalism, or even foundational Baptist principles. Instead, the issue is how we use magisterial documents as litmus tests for orthodoxy rather than the testimony of transformed hearts and lives by the Spirit of God.

McFadden’s conclusion is telling of this point. He recognizes the inherent danger of the Fundamentalist position within the SBC. He calls it the “conservative resurgence,” but he’s living out the fundamentalist takeover. Sadly, he probably never thought he’d be a victim. Here is his conclusion in full:

“And this is what some who opposed the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention prophesied would happen. They said in effect that if you cause divisions over first level doctrines, then the divisions will never stop. This prophecy is beginning to come true. I hope you will see that the situation at Louisiana College didn’t have to happen, and it doesn’t have to happen in the future.”

No, it doesn’t. Faithful Baptists have known that for decades, and we’ve found faithfulness to God through Jesus Christ. I pray that the bloodshed will cease and that theological, intellectual, and political freedom will once again be the theme of Baptist life at LC and in our nation. As for me, I’m a Baptist. God have mercy.

---

[1] http://sbcvoices.com/how-southern-baptists-should-approach-disagreements-in-theology-by-dr-kevin-mcfadden/