Driscoll, Holmes, and One Member One Vote

In a recent post, Baptist minister and theology lecturer Steve Holmes offers a response to a talk given by Mark Driscoll in Belfast offering his views on congregational government and missional church life (HT The Simple Pastor). Holmes’ response is interesting to me on at least a couple of levels – firstly, I have spent the past few days immersed in preparing some teaching I am giving next month on ecclesiology, which of course includes looking at different models of church government. Secondly, while the church I lead finds its primary connection with Newfrontiers, we are also part of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, and the way we govern ourselves bears some reflection of that fact.

I have reproduced Holmes’ post in full (in italics), with my response inserted…

1. This is an off-the-cuff response at a Q&A session; we should not treat it as his considered and final word on the subject. That said, Mars Hill have chosen to make the MP3 available; the comments are published, with no rider to the effect that ‘I wasn’t sure about how well I handled that one,’ so they are fair game for discussion and response.

Fair enough – I haven’t listened to it myself, but having heard Driscoll speak on these matters a few times have a good idea of what he might have said.

2. The most astonishing and worrying thing about the comments is that they are entirely pragmatic. Faced with the question of the most appropriate mode of church government, Driscoll’s response is not to turn to the Bible, or to think theologically about what God calls the local church to be, but to ask what works (where ‘works’ is defined as adding numbers to one particular local congregation, with no consideration of the edification of the saints, the transformation of society, or the wider mission of the church). As a convinced congregationalist, when it comes to church government, my fundamental response to Driscoll’s comments is indifference tinged with sadness. Indifference, because we are called to be faithful, not successful; sadness because someone who commands a great deal of attention as a Christian pastor could be so publicly negligent of Scripture and theology.

Anyone who has spent any length of time listening to Driscoll knows that he does not normally shy away from quoting scripture! To draw the conclusion from this one session that Driscoll is “publicly negligent of Scripture and theology” is disingenuous, to say the least. It might also be noted that Holmes doesn’t exactly go overboard in offering scriptural references in defense of his position in this post. Holmes also makes the classic mistake of presenting success and faithfulness as opposites, with the implication that growing large churches is somehow unfaithful – which is a straw man argument.

3. It is apparent that Driscoll has not troubled to understand congregational government before criticising it. He repeatedly characterises congregational government as if it were an exercise in democracy: ‘everyone gets a vote’; this is a fundamental misunderstanding: congregationalism takes its stand on the Lordship of Jesus in the local congregation. (Tolmie entitled his chapter on the rise of Independency in London in the 1640s ‘King Jesus’.) Because we experience the present Lordship of Jesus, and covenant together to follow only Him, we eschew any who would call themselves a leader in the congregation as simply and precisely an anti-Christ. Of course, there could then be a debate – the only worthwhile debate about church government – concerning how the congregation hears the urgent and present call of Christ: is it through hierarchy, even male-only hierarchy, or does Christ dwell with all His people, and speak through each, as He shall choose? Driscoll does not even mention the call of Christ on His local congregation.

Which is Holmes making any number of assumptions! How does he know that Driscoll does not understand congregational government? Perhaps Driscoll understands it very well, but is criticizing congregational government as it so often is in practice, rather than in theory? In theory it may well be “Christ in the midst” but in practice it is more often “everyone gets a vote.” Which is why countless Baptist ministers have been chewed up and spat out and wrecked for further fruitful ministry by their treatment at the hands of church business meetings.

Also, to “eschew any who would call themselves a leader in the congregation” is to ignore the many biblical instructions and examples about leadership. Biblically, leadership is a gift from Christ to his church, not anti-Christ.

4. Which leads on to a crucial theological consequence of congregational government. Congregational government assumes and insists that all believers are equally competent, or equally incompetent, when it comes to knowing the mind of Christ. Driscoll mocks congregationalism on the basis that someone who knows nothing about a subject is given a vote. Absolutely, because the question in hand is never ‘What do I think the best thing to do about this is?’ but always ‘What is the call of the Lord Jesus to this people in this situation?’ A question we are all, of course, incompetent to answer – but the Lord Jesus has poured out His Spirit, and so sons and daughters prophesy, the young see visions and the old dream dreams – even slaves, male and female, refused any part in the decision-making process by the culture around, are given the Spirit and so can hear the voice of the Lord calling His church.

Which is the nub of the problem with congregational government! Paul’s defense of his ministry is grounded in the fact that Christ has made the apostles competent as ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor 3). Leadership is given to the church in order to lead it competently, which is why Paul left Titus in Crete, to appoint elders in every town, who would oversee the churches (Titus 1:5-7). It is why Jesus gives spiritual gifts of administration (1 Cor 12:28 – better translated as “helmsman”, i.e., a steering leadership gift) and why those with gifts of leadership are urged to be zealous in their leadership (Rom 12:8). It is why the scripture instructs us that leadership gifts are given in order that the church might be built up and made mature (Eph 4:12). Clearly some people do have greater maturity, gift, and competence, to make decisions than others.

What then is so often missing in discussion of church government is the significance of being charismatic. In a church that believes in and practices the spiritual gifts there can be clear spiritual authority in a church, and also the “voice of the Lord calling His church” – because everyone (“even slaves, male and female”) is able to contribute. Anyone can bring a prophetic word, which is then weighed by the whole congregation – which to me seems much more in line with the NT instructions about congregational guidance and decision making than the typical Baptist business meeting. If this is what Holmes is driving for, then well and good!

5. Driscoll claims that congregational government is impossible in a congregation of over 200. This is of course, as he must know, simple rubbish – there are many congregational churches significantly larger than this, and if he can’t imagine how that could work, well, the limits of his imagination are not interesting data. It may be, however, that there is a practical upper limit for a properly-functioning congregationalism; suppose it was 200, what of it? There is neither example of nor command for a congregation larger than this in the New Testament; megachurches may feed the founding pastor’s ego, and further his/her reputation, but it is not clear at all that they are especially successful in feeding Christ’s sheep, or in furthering Christ’s mission. Perhaps every congregation should, on reaching a certain number of members, plant out, or divide itself, because this is a part of the call to be faithful to Christ? If that were so, it would not be an argument that Christ’s call is wrong or misdirected.

Well, there is a whole load of unsupported argument, and not a little mud-slinging here! There is the obviously erroneous statement: “There is neither example of nor command for a congregation larger than this in the New Testament” Jerusalem? 3,000? There is the assumption that megachurches are about feeding ego – when the sad evidence is all too clear that ministerial pride is not limited to any particular size of congregation.

I agree that there are strong arguments for congregations staying at below 200 members, and this is reflected in the strategy we are pursuing at Gateway – but this number is as much a pragmatic observation as a theological given. And the reality is that there are certain exceptional men – like Driscoll – who will grow churches of thousands simply because that is what they have received grace to do.

So, all in all, I feel that Holmes has given us a fairly poorly argued piece here. In fairness to him, however, a subsequent post makes a helpful case for Baptist business meetings stopping the practice of voting; although what should replace this is not made clear, if the church is still to be governed congregationally. (As argued above, I think the best solution to this is to be genuinely charismatic.) Also, as a push back against some of my friends, I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater on voting – my experience of recent members meetings has been that it can be a spiritually very powerful moment when the church members affirm together a particular course of action.

There are strong biblical arguments to be made for congregationalism, as there are for presbyterianism - and a hybrid of the two is the reality of the manner in which many of us minister. Ironically, episcopalianism has the weakest biblical case to make in its defense, yet has been the dominant system of church government these past 2,000 years.

Odd.

Celebrity Christians

Over on the Ref21 blog a few weeks back Carl Trueman posted a short series on Christian celebrity, which ruffled some feathers. (The series starts here)

I felt Trueman landed some good punches in this sequence, but was also off target in a few places. For instance, this suggestion is an interesting one:

Market conferences on the basis of content not speakers.  Send a clear signal - from the design of the webpage to the wording of the fliers - that it is what is to be said, not who is saying it, that is important.   Indeed, maybe one could be really radical: do not even let people know who is speaking; just tell them the titles of the talks.  "Ah, but then no-one will come!", you say.  Well, if that is true, then the case for saying that conferences are all about idolising celebrities would seem to be irrefutable.  For me, I believe many people would still attend.  They will want the encouragement and the fellowship and the battery recharging.  If your organization has a reputation for excellence, people will know that you will have assembled a great team even if you do not tell them the names.

Where I think Trueman is off target here is in failing to see the importance of names. Firstly, if “your organization has a reputation for excellence” that means your organization has a name and people attend because of the name. And the name it has will be because of the names associated with it. Why do people go to Acts29 conferences? Because they like Mark Driscoll. Willow Creek conferences? Because they like Bill Hybels. Newfrontiers conferences? Because they like Terry Virgo. And so on.

Secondly, we should not overlook the fact that the Bible is a book of names – hundreds and hundreds of them. Clearly names are important to God, and the name that someone has is important. The way we know someone is by their name – not only a label of, “this is Mr S-and-So” but “the person known by this name represents this.” So I don’t see the problem in going to a conference because of the names that are there – the names represent something.

However, the promo video that has just been released for next years Together for the Gospel conference got me thinking that Trueman might be right in some important respects.

In this video there is no reference to content whatsoever. It is all about the names. They are good names – names I would like to hear preach, and have heard preach, and whose books I have read, and blogs I have followed. But it does seem a little odd – when you think about it – that we so value name over content.

Perhaps we do have a celebrity problem? Perhaps we are getting a little too Corinthian?

More Multi Thoughts (that keep multiplying!)

It’s been quiet on this blog for a while, but I thought I’d post some more thoughts about multi, as it seems to be a hot topic at the moment. The other day Mark Driscoll linked to a video in which he, Mark Dever and James MacDonald debate multi, and it is getting a lot of views.

I guess everyone knows who Driscoll is, but may not know the other two. Dever is pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, and leads the 9Marks organisation, which is well worth checking out. It may just have been the editing, but Dever gets rather squeezed out by the more voluble Driscoll & MacDonald in this video, which is a shame, as he has at least as many interesting things to say. I wasn’t familiar with MacDonald until I heard him speak at the Gospel Coalition conference a couple of weeks back, but he is pastor of a Chicago megachurch.

[A digression: A few people have asked why I reacted to a tweet that Driscoll had put out linking to a post by MacDonald on the Royal Wedding, so let me explain myself… 

Basically, I thought it was ignorant and graceless. Now, I’m not above posting ignorant and graceless things myself, but I think both my readers can cope with this (hello mum!) whereas MacDonald clearly has a massive audience/influence. (And anyhow, it’s always much easier to see the ignorance and gracelessness in others than in oneself.) I am not exactly a defender of Anglicanism, but MacDonald was just way out of line (historically, as well as in tone) in some of his comments and I didn’t think the post did him or Driscoll any credit. The bio on MacDonald’s blog says, “James is down on cranky, cheerless Christians,” and in this case that definitely felt like pots & kettles. But perhaps I’m just being ignorant and graceless again…]

If you haven’t seen the video yet, here it is:

Multiple Sites: Yea or Nay? Dever, Driscoll, and MacDonald Vote from Ben Peays on Vimeo.

A few observations:

1. Contrary to what Driscoll/Macdonald say, most churches won’t be multi-site and shouldn’t be multi-site. Why? Because most church leaders do not have the leadership skills to run such an organisation. Most churches will level out at ±150 people because that is the size that human organizations tend to level out at, and the size that most pastors can handle.

I am personally a fan of multi, have been thinking about how to do it for five years or so, and believe it is the right way for us to go at Gateway – so I am in no way down on the concept, but do think we need some healthy doses of reality. Even building a church of 500 people is very difficult (certainly in the UK). I have now been leading churches for 10 years and haven’t managed it yet, and there are plenty of men with longer ministries and more impressive resumes than me who haven’t managed it either.

2. As Tim Keller observed at the Gospel Coalition conference, “Video preaching isn’t a sin, but it’s not a great trend.” Why? Because generally preaching should involve face to face interaction with the congregation and a response to what the Spirit is doing right there, right then.

Now I know and understand the arguments that in larger churches where a live preacher is augmented by a video image people end up watching the screen rather than the man anyway. But that is hardly a great apologetic for video preaching! It’s like saying, “In supermarkets, there’s chocolate by the till, and people buy it – therefore we should give people more chocolate.” Maybe, instead, we need to ask some socio-theological questions about our addiction to screens.

Of course a well produced video of a good preacher is going to ‘work’ in a service. But there are still some questions we should ask about this working.

Also, video preaching is only really going to work where the preacher is especially good. The likes of Driscoll and MacDonald (and Dever) are exceptional in their gifts. Most of us are far more run of the mill. Making models of the exceptions is usually a bad idea. Some, uniquely gifted guys (who are more ‘apostolic’ than ‘pastoral’ anyway) will make video work well. Most of us couldn’t.

3. There are other possible ways of doing multi than using video, or having one speaker who tears from venue to venue. (Which is another model that causes me theological/philosophical problems as it seems to often mean that the preacher is never part of the worshipping congregation, responding to what God is doing there, but rather a kind of actor who pops up to do a turn.)

One of the connections I most enjoyed making while in Chicago was with a pastor from Newlife Community Church, who are doing multi in a way which is much closer to what I would like to do at Gateway. They’ve got a really inspiring video here.

In Poole/Bournemouth I think multi can work, with fairly small congregations (around the ±150 mark), led and shepherded by local elders, who also preach regularly to their own congregations, but where this eldership is joined together in one elder team. This team would prepare sermons together, and preach the same passage/topic each week, but it would be a team of preachers doing it, who know and love their people, rather than one guy on a video, or chauffeured in.

Of course, this is still at the dream stage for us, but I’m convinced it’s where we should be heading.

So, in conclusion, my urging would be that if you are thinking about multi, then great! But do really think about it! It might not be right for you, period. And how Driscoll or MacDonald do it almost certainly isn’t right for you – and I hope I’m not being ignorant and graceless in saying so.