|
The
Church: Being The Body
Revisions
on the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message are vitally important for
Baptists to consider. Frankly I am both deeply disturbed by these
revisions and eagerly excited about the opportunity they afford
to define clearly the nature of the church as traditionally understood
by Baptists. The
New Testament contains many images of the church which help us
to understand who we are called to be. None has been more precious
to Baptists than the image of the church as a royal priesthood
or priests in the service of the King. This image stated specifically
in 1 Peter 2:9 speaks to us of precious privilege and revolutionary
responsibility. The precious privilege. Only
a select few had access to God in Old Testament Israel. The temple
was divided into the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Only priests
could enter the sanctuary. Only a high priest could enter the
Holy of Holies and then only once a year. Both access to God and
the service of God were limited to an elite group among the people
and more specifically to one member of that group. That's
the way it was, however, according to the New Testament, when
Jesus mounted Calvary's cross the Temple veil was rent from top
to bottom. Access to the presence of God and the opportunity to
His service was now open to all people. In
Jesus Christ all of God's people have become priests. This is
the precious privilege of the priesthood of every believer, a
privilege for which Baptists have lived and died throughout the
centuries. No earthly mediator is necessary. Indeed we can tolerate
no earthly mediator whether that mediator takes the form of a
person or a piece of paper. As
priests we have access to the presence of God. As priests we have
access to the Word of God. As priests we have access to the Spirit
of God in interpreting that word. And as priests we have access
to the service of God whatever form that service may take. Within
this context we join freely and voluntarily as a local body of
believers in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor
free, male nor female, but a congregation in which we are committed
to His Lordship and to one another NOT subservient to bishop or
presbytery or pastor nor any earthly authority or creed. Celebrating
equal access to the presence and service of God, we are priests
in the service of the King. This is our New Testament birthright
and this is our Baptist heritage in the church of Jesus Christ
where the ground at the foot of the cross is level. The
1963 BF&M speaks clearly to this vision when it speaks of
a Baptist church in which "members are equally responsible"
to its democratic process of governance, equally responsible under
the Lordship of Christ, equally responsible for salvation, equally
responsible for service and equally responsible for the life of
the church. They
omitted the statement about "equal responsibility" in
the 2000 BF&M and replaced it with one that says "Each
member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord."
No one would argue with this except that by the omission of the
statement about equal responsibility, the revised statement reduces
the collective responsibility of the congregation. It
removes the notion of equality in governance and allows for different
levels of responsibility and authority. It opens the door for
pastor-dominated, deacon-dominated, elder-ruled or faction-dominated
polity. In so doing it strikes at the very heart of the gospel. In
spite of objections to the contrary, the article's ending statement
that only males may occupy the office of a pastor betrays the
full intent of the omission of the affirmation of equality. We
can make such a statement only if one is willing to deny the priesthood
of every believer that demands equality in priestly access to
God and priestly service of God. Denies Radical Nature of Gospel Rather
than upholding the priesthood of the believer, the revisers have
fallen prey to the very thing they so diligently argue against,
a perversion of the gospel prompted by cultural influences, a
backlash against cultural movements. The attempt to hold the line
of biblical fidelity actually denies the radical nature of the
gospel which offers equal access to the call of God and equal
opportunity to the service of God. Let
us never forget that in Christ we are all a royal priesthood,
priests in the service of the Kingdom. To limit access to the
pastoral role is to establish the equivalent of a spiritual elitism
within the church by dividing clergy and laity. It denies the
radical nature of the gospel truth that the 1963 article so boldly
states. Church
members are responsible equally for its life. It is to say the
ground at the foot of the cross is not level after all. It is,
in the end, an announcement of another gospel that is no gospel
at all! Denies local church history. As
if this were not enough, this declaration denies the cherished
Baptist principle of local church autonomy. It robs local congregations
of the freedom to be faithful in determining for themselves who
it is that God has called and, therefore, who they may call to
serve the church. Let
us remember, it is in the church we flesh out the gospel's revolutionary
nature for all to see. So let us live in the reality of what it
means to be God's royal priesthood. In
the revision of this article then, they have undermined both the
New Testament and the Baptist visions of church in the name of
biblical fidelity! I can almost hear Paul crying out "O foolish
Galatians! Who has bewitched you...?" Let us stand firm and stand fast for the radical Baptist vision. In the believers' church "members are equally responsible" for service. Churches are fully autonomous and fully open to God's leadership in their choices of pastoral leadership positions. The revised BF&M subtly and clearly rejects this.
|
