Which model?

I would like to sum up my paper on “A history of the Reformed Baptist thinking in Malaysia.” In this summary I would like to show you two different models of the local church that emerged from all the discussion. One is a combination of a self defined image plus an image defined by others, and the other is an image defined by the factual teaching from the New Testament.  The Reformed Baptists have already established a model of the church by our belief and practice. The Reformed believers have already projected an outstanding image by our philosophy. The Christian public has also defined the Reformed believers, based on what they saw and heard, in a negative way. In the eyes of the Christian public, they have almost nothing good to say about the Reformed believers. It is a fact of life, if we do not define ourselves clearly and properly by a good philosophy and a healthy practice, others will define us in a way that will not make us happy. So, we do have a choice, either we define ourselves or be defined by others.

Let me show you the two distinctive images;

Firstly, this is the existing image of the Reformed Baptist church that has been projected by us as well as being perceived by the Christian public.

1.       We are reformed believers or Calvinists.

2.       We subscribe to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith as the rule of belief and practice and we interpret the Bible according to the doctrines found in the Confession.

3.       We believe that the “moral” Law of Moses still has a hold on the Christians and therefore our teaching of this Law is always preceding the gospel of Jesus Christ.

4.       We believe that the ultimate purpose of God giving the 4^th commandment is that it should be kept as a rite until the end of the world. Therefore, we observe a Christian Sabbath that is on the Sunday as an act of obedience to the 4^th commandment.

5.        We do not like to emphasize on the Holy Wind[i] and we also do not like the “sign seeking”[ii] theology. .

6.       We sing hymns and psalms only during the public worship[iii].

7.       We have a pastor to supervise the local church ministry.

Secondly, this is the image of the local church that emerged from the exegetical observation and study of the New Testament texts.

1.       We are an assembly of pneumatic[iv] people who have been saved by Christ Jesus and created anew in Christ Jesus and are being transformed into the His likeness by the Holy Wind.

2.       We have entered the Sabbatical rest of God and we are reminded that we no longer depending on our laboring for salvation. We are called to enjoy the Sabbath everyday and to worship the Lord of the Sabbath both in private and in public assembly for the rest of our lives or till the return of the Lord.

3.       We are called to wait in a peaceful and quiet manner for the return of the Lord Jesus by conducting our lives in a manner that is worthy of the gospel and the Holy Wind.

4.       We obey the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ that was preached since the days of Adam.

5.       We are called to carefully study the Bible and ensure that we understand what it says and not forcing it to say what we want it to say, and then we will put into practice all that we learn from it.

6.       We sing psalms, songs accompanied by string instruments, hymns and spiritual songs in the worship[v].

7.       We have a board of elders to supervise the life of the local church.

These two lists are definitely not exhaustive and more could be added to them. The point that I want to establish is that we are far from being perfect as an assembly of believers in Christ Jesus. We must not be fooled by anyone that we are the perfect model of the local church compare to other evangelical churches. We must not be fooled to think too highly of ourselves because in actual fact we share many short comings with the other evangelical churches.

We have a choice. We can either choose to remain at the same spot or we can redefine ourselves and move on. Remain would mean perpetuating the current condition and it might mean a dead end for the reformed work in Malaysia. Having surveyed our major doctrinal thinking, redefining and regrouping ourselves seems to be the only reasonable choice to make. We cannot move on with our old human philosophy. We can only move forward with the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our old thinking and tradition are like the old wine skin and it cannot hold the gospel and it might burst anytime. So we must change into a new wine skin quickly so that we might be able to move forward with the gospel.

---

[i] “Holy Spirit”

[ii] “Charismatic”

[iii] The hymns we use today are in no way identical to the hymns mentioned in the New Testament.

[iv] “spiritual people”

[v] See my article on “How to sing?”

Where is the basis of appointment?

The old debate on the issue about church leadership among the Reformed Baptists is always circling around the equality of the elders and the distinction among the elders. Seldom attention is given to the basis of the appointment of these leaders. We are weak and vague in this. The Reformed Baptists, generally, believe in the theory that the pastor is the leader[i]. Ephesians 4.11-12 is often quoted, accompanied by the image of the Good Shepherd[ii], as the basis for the calling of a pastor. However, anyone who has some basic idea about the art of exegesis would know that the immediate context of the passage can hardly constitute a command from the apostle as he has given to Timothy and Titus[iii]. Paul was encouraging the church to move on to maturity and unity by drawing her attention to the gift of “the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor teachers.” These four offices mentioned were the apostolic band and they were given as a whole package. Exegetically, it is arbitrary to take the pastor teacher out from the band and make it an office for today. The question would rise from within the context, why choose the pastor teacher alone and why not the apostles, the prophets, and the evangelists? However, in a cleaver manner, the role of the pastor teacher has been singled out from the list, and please do not bother to ask who gave the permission to do that. Never mind also about the fact that big argument and a little twisting here and there had been done to the text, the important thing is that a basis for the calling of the pastors has been established.

Armed with this new “biblical basis”, these experts approach Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus on the appointment of elders in the local churches, and established the following theory.

1.       A pastor is a teacher and a good one.

2.       A distinction is therefore made in the Timothy and Titus texts that there were two types of elders; namely the teaching elder and the ruling elder.

3.        The teaching elder is  a good teacher and is called by God, whereas the ruling elder is invited by the former to assist him in the work.

4.       Another distinction is made that a teaching elder is a full time worker and should be salaried by the local church while a ruling elder is not[iv].

5.       The teaching elder is therefore the pastor.

So in a very simple manner, a basis for the calling of the pastor is established and the relationship among the elders is solved. So we can confidently convincing ourselves that we can have one pastor or teaching elder and many ruling elders be appointed in a local church, with the pastor as the chief  of the elders.

Unfortunately, the story does not stop here, because there is a new voice wanting to be heard from within the same fraternal. This group of believers agrees that the “gift text” indicates a basis for the call of the pastors. They also refer to Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus, but they do not do the hair splitting and twisting stance with the text. They view the “gift text” and Paul’s instruction essentially refers to the same persons who were called to be the pastors. According to this interpretation, the pastors and the elders are the same persons called by God to serve in the local churches. There is no difference between the two and the elders are the pastors. Ultimately, in a similar sentiment, that the pastor is still the designated leader in a local church.

I suspected that the apostles did not call for an “ordination” of the pastors when I was exposed to such debate. I can safely say to myself today that indeed my suspicion was right. The New Testament evidence clearly shows that there is no instruction from the apostles for the local churches to ordain pastors. Historically, I believe, “pastors” is a romantic idea created by the early Catholics and perpetuated by the Protestants till the present day. While the New Testament shows us that the apostles gave instruction to the local churches to appoint both elders and deacons only. The scripture does not show any evidence that there is a special distinction between the elders. This distinction is really a human arbitrary[v]. Elder is the highest recognition that the scripture had given to a servant of God serving in a local church. This would be also the best honor the local church can give to that man.

So, now we have three distinctive views on the basis of calling;

1.       The pastor is called by God while the elders are invited by the pastors to assist them in the local church.

2.       The elder is called by God and he is the pastor. Essentially these two are called to the same pastors’ office in the local church.

3.       A board of elders is called by God to oversee or supervise the life of the local churches. The New Testament recognizes only the elders’ office and nothing else.

Or strictly speaking, there are only two distinctive views; the difference is between a pastor leading a local church and a board of elders supervising a local church.

Why bother to establish another basis for appointment? Church members are already confused by the two existing views, why bother to produce another? Do I think that church members are not confused enough? I have two reasons why I want to be clear about the basis of calling. Firstly, it is our duty as believers to be clear headed about the scripture. If the leaders of the local churches are muddle headed, how are they going to supervise the local churches? Otherwise it will be the case of the blind leading the blind and eventually all will fall into the pit.

Secondly, it is for practical reason that we should be clear about the basis of appointment. Based on Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus, candidates would be appointed according to the list of qualification. However, we seldom pay attention to the fact that a serving elder can be disqualified by the list of qualification. Take for instance, when a pastor was accused of having committed an act of sexual harassment and he was confronted by some church members and was asked to leave quietly, but he refused. Now there is a loophole in this calling of a pastor, because he was a pastor and not an ordinary elder, and therefore did not come under the qualification list. He was called by God and only God can disqualify him because that was the basis upon which he was ordained as the pastor.

If the man was appointed as an elder according to Paul’s instruction then he would be monitored by the qualification list.  One of the requirements clearly stated that the elder must be a husband of one wife. It means that the man must be a man of one marriage. He must be faithful to his wife and not having a second wife or sexual relationship with another woman. He must only draw sexual pleasure from his wife in a loving relationship. By no means, he should draw such pleasure, whether it is by force, threat, ape, or sexual harassment, from other women. The man who had allegedly committed the act of sexual harassment should have either disqualified himself from the job and leaves quietly, or the local church would have ask him to leave.

I hope, with this present discussion, we can now focus on the basis of appointment, and not continue to circle round the choice between the distinction among elders and equality of the elders. For the two “so called” different views actually believe in the same thing and both would have the pastor as the leader. When we are able tell in no uncertain term that there is only one basis of appointment and that is for the elders, and then we would be able to determine the office and the job description of those who are called by God to lead the local churches. At the present moment, it is quite clear that our churches are operating without a basis. In practice, of course, it is not a matter of life and death, the churches would still move on without any basis, and the leaders can be called by different names.  However, it is because we regard the Bible as the rule over our practice, we cannot ignore the fact that we do not have a basis to appoint pastors to the local churches.

---

[i] We share the common sentiment with the Catholics and many evangelical churches in Malaysia.

[ii] Ezekiel 34; John 10

[iii] 1 Timothy 3.1-7; Titus 1.4-6.

[iv] 1 Timothy 5.17-18

[v] See my exegetical observation on the related texts in the article “Elders for the pastoral ministry”.