The July 21 edition of Newsweek features a cover story on the faith of Senator Barak Obama. This is a clip:

The story of Obama’s religious journey is a uniquely American tale. It’s one of a seeker, an intellectually curious young man trying to cobble together a religious identity out of myriad influences. Always drawn to life’s Big Questions, Obama embarked on a spiritual quest in which he tried to reconcile his rational side with his yearning for transcendence. He found Christ—but that hasn’t stopped him from asking questions. “I’m on my own faith journey and I’m searching,” he says. “I leave open the possibility that I’m entirely wrong.”

No, this is not the Christian once-delivered-faith in the abolute Truth. This is not Christian faith at all. Read the article here.

Today the Albert Mohler Radio Program airs a previously recorded discussion between Dr. Mohler and me about Where Are All the Brothers? I appreciate Dr. Mohler recognizing the emphasis the book places on the importance of men in the church and community. Dr. Mohler is a God-fearing man and a gracious host. I am emphasizing this so that readers of this blog might know that my friend, Al, is more than an intellectual for the kingdom. He is a man with a big heart.

It is important to note that today’s broadcast was recorded prior to the previous post on voting for Obama. If I may, please allow me to add that I am grateful for the comments made concerning the previous post—even the private comments sent to me via email. I know that the post caused indigestion for some. However, the post generated the sort of discussion needed for believers of all ethnicities in this country to take a real look at why our applications of faith vary so greatly when we approach the polls. I personally took issue with Mark Noll’s choice to abstain from the election process in 2004. This year, however, for different reasons—reasons related to the previous post, for the first time since I have been old enough to vote, I might join Professor Noll on the couch on Super Tuesday.

Thank you also to the following radio hosts for gracious interviews on the subject matter of the book and Black Liberation Theology:

Bill Feltner, KNIS Pilgrim Radio, 05/21/08, http://www.pilgrimradio.com/Home.php

Angela Price, 1350 WLOU, 05/29/08

Greg Wheatley, Moody Radio, 05/30/08, http://www.moodyradio.org/brd_ProgramDetail.aspx?id=20052

Paul Edwards, The Paul Edwards Show, 06/17/08, http://www.am1500wlqv.com/ContentPages/393/

Kevin Boling, Calling for Truth, 06/19/08, www.callingfortruth.org

Paul Wolfe, Laus Deo, 07/06/08, http://www.lausdeoradio.net/

Herein lie buried many things, which if read with patience may sow the strange meaning of being black here in the dawning of the twentieth century. This meaning is not without interest to you, Gentle Reader; for the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line. (W. E. B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk [New York: Pocket Books, 2005]: 3.)

“But how can a Christian vote for Obama?”

I am paraphrasing a question asked of me while in attendance at the Hampton University Ministers’ Conference five weeks ago. It had become obvious to my interrogator that an African American, Democratic version of wrapping the Cross of Christ in the Stars and Stripes had taken a prominent place in the sermons of those preaching at the conference. We were being challenged by speakers to be diligent not to squander our moral responsibility to push Obama into the White House. Roaring responses of clapping and shouting followed these charges as if all of the thousands of African American church leaders and laity present were in full agreement.

          Such laudation of the senator from Illinois, by those proclaiming to know the Creator through the Incarnate Son, bothered my friend. An Illinois citizen and theologically conservative Christian, he could not reconcile a vote cast for Obama with anyone who professed the name of Christ. To him, it was very obvious that Obama’s views on abortion and same-sex marriage are so far from what Scripture requires of us that, seemingly, to vote for Obama would be to deny the very things Christians believe. So he turned to me for some explanation of how African American Christians could vote in good faith for Obama without sensing conviction for endorsing one who takes anti-Christian positions on the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.

The Issue of Hope

           I started by explaining that for African Americans, there is a sense of hope no longer being deferred. Instead, hope is at the front door knocking furiously, waiting to see if African Americans will answer. If we open the door, forty million African Americans are going to witness a fellow African American getting the largest slice of the American Dream Pie—a dessert many had hoped to see people of color eat in their lifetime, but the many fell asleep having embraced such promises from afar. As the struggle for social and economic equality has been a struggle for all African Americans, regardless of belief system(s), we all share in the joy when one of our own achieves the (presumptive) nomination for the highest office in the land—an office that has been reserved for white males only until now. Obama’s candidacy would allow all African Americans to say to our forefathers, “we finally did it! Your attempts at escaping slavery, deaths by lynching, scars from the scourge of slave masters’ whips, pain from the full blast of unleashed water hoses and muzzle-free police dogs, humiliation by white hecklers at lunch counters, degradation at “coloreds only” fountains and restrooms, indignation on the back of buses, forced acceptance of poorer educational materials and facilities, and marches at the threat of beatings and bombings have not been for naught! Hope, yea victory, is finally here! We are equal at the highest level!”

          Factoring all of the historical pockmarks into the hope equation seems to be African Americans’ expression of the reality of “the problem of the Twentieth Century” (DuBois). For African Americans, Christians and non-Christians alike, race, racial prejudice, racial segregation, racial discrimination, racial injustice, racial hatred, racial educational and economic disparity, racial self-consciousness, the racialization of society and all attempts to address problems attributed to the majority culture’s mistreatment of African Americans in any form based on race alone only serve to remind African Americans of their “double-consciousness” (DuBois). As Dubois wrote, in this society African Americans are

a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world— a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world…   It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity.  One ever feels his two-ness— an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder, (3).

The Issue of Identity

          If we take DuBois’ musings as an accurate analysis of African American existence, we can see another factor involved in Christian African Americans’ support of Obama: identity. We now have a candidate who we think identifies with the experience of African Americans. He has experienced the struggle of the great-great-great-grandchildren of slaves (even though he is not one). So surely, it is supposed, he will fight for policies and programs that will be sensitive to the plight of his people and that work toward uplifting the entire race of people to the place where the playing field is level. Surely, as one of us, he will sign into law measures that will protect the gains made during the Civil Rights and post-Civil Rights Eras. Because he is one of us, we have hope that we will no longer have to look at ourselves through the contemptuous eyes of others—i.e., white Americans. We now can look at ourselves through the eyes of the man who could hold the most well-known office in the free-world, and he can look at the world through our eyes. Such looking is inherent when one is in the majority culture; in that culture it is never hoped for or awaited. It is part of being in the majority. For African Americans, to deny Obama would then be, in some sense, to deny one’s own identity. Yet it remains true that no one ever thinks a white man not voting for Clinton, Bush or McCain is a denial of whiteness.

          I would suggest that Obama, more than any other candidate, has the ability to say to African Americans, “my fellow Americans,” and do so with the implicit trust of African Americans. His Father’s Day speech demonstrated this ability, for he is the only presidential candidate who can risk bringing up a major social problem in the African American community in an African American pulpit without fear of ostracizing himself. He was able to play a black race card on an all black table in such a way that to outsiders it simply looked as if he still had his card in his hand. But those at the table gladly folded their cards having seen the winning hand.

          Being able to see the potential for mutual embracing of identities in a candidate further means that African Americans will not feel the need to settle on the candidate who represents the lesser of two evils. By common consent, many African Americans feel that their votes are taken for granted by one major political party, and only courted as tokenism by the other major party. The votes do not result in policy changes that benefit African Americans as a whole no matter which party’s candidate wins office. As a result, African Americans often resign simply to give a vote to one of the two white candidates, without feeling that their best interests will be taken up truly. An Obama candidacy immediately changes the hopeless feelings of resignation as the fall approaches. His candidacy means African Americans will have the opportunity to make a choice excitedly and confidently. Higher than average African American attendance at the polls in November could be a reflection of the joy brought on by the ability to pick a candidate without mental or emotional reservation and resignation.

The Issue of Justice

          I think there is a third reason African American hail Obama: justice. That is, we have placed faith in liberal government to save us when we perceived that those who were conservative politically were weak in running to aid those experiencing race-related injustices. Historically, it seemed that change in race-relations in America was slow to come about through personal moral change on a wide scale. As a result, African Americans looked to Federal policy to institute change in institutional structures. That is, “if you will not find it in your heart to grant me the same access to bid on business contracts, I will look to the government to enact legislation to make you give me access to bid equally on business contracts regardless of my skin color.”

          An Obama nomination looks like a nomination for social justice – far more than does a nomination for someone from the other party. If the Illinois senator will carry both white and Black voters in November, unlike Democratic candidates from other ethnicities, he will not be able to make promises to African Americans without accountability to keep his promises. Instead, he will be under pressure not to let his people down judicially. He will have to reject policies that stand against the Democratic version of racial progress, and he will have to sign into law policies that stand for such progress. Anything short of this will bring more ire from African Americans than that directed toward any other president who fell short on his promises. Because the hope is greater, the expectation will be greater, and the backlash for perceived failure will be greater. But African Americans do not expect Obama to fail. They expect social and economic justice policies to find favor with this candidate, for Affirmative Action to be strengthened, for racial profiling and racial inequities in the legal systems to be brought into account and see diminishing statistics, and for “equal justice for all” to be more than words on the halls of justice.

          An Obama presidency would portray justice in another odd sort of way. Akin to the issue of hope above, his election would be seen as vindication. It would have a self-correcting effect on the errors of America’s history, with its sins of chattel slavery, Jim Crow laws, and ongoing civil injustices. What better way for African Americans to hear the country say, “join us in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!” What greater way is there for African Americans in turn to say, “We have overcome!” What an Obama in the White House would do for African Americans is allow us to feel we can say, “Now this country is going to treat us equally, fairly, justly.”

          In order to understand the sentiment of African Americans as a whole – of whom Christian African Americans are a part – one would do well to consider that African Americans have not yet been free in this country for as long as we were slaves, (1654-1865, [211 years] vs. 1865-2008. [143 years]). Moreover, the Civil Rights Era only ended 33 years ago with the extension of the Voting Rights Act (1975). It was only ten years prior to this extension that Jim Crow laws were brought to an end with the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Many of the citizens who rode through this era on the back of the bus are still alive waiting on even more gains for African Americans—gains they feel will not come at the hands of white leadership. These same citizens, who often daily drank in the fears of an Emmett Till episode or a Birmingham bombing—this while whites separately drank in American prosperity free from fear, at the expense of African Americans— diligently taught their children to trust African Americans to uplift African Americans. That generation, and their children to the third and fourth generations, sees in Barak Obama one for whom we can say, “finally, we’re driving this bus.” This attitude even has been expressed by African American conservatives, such as J. C. Watts and Armstrong Williams, who are considering jumping party lines in order to cast a vote for Senator Obama.

The Cross and the Ballot

          The above thoughts do not make a judgment on whether Christian African Americans should or should not vote for Obama. The intention of this work is only to offer some reasons that explain why Christian African Americans might vote for Obama in the fall. It does not address the suggested contradiction between voting for a pro-choice candidate and claiming to be a voter who holds a pro-life position. Personally, I think that sanctity of life issues only deal with one of ten areas of sin in the Decalogue, so they are not to be elevated above all of the other prohibitions and commandments. I hold this belief in spite of the fact that my favorite modern Christian author, John Piper, who is a pastor, theologian, Christian statesman, and friend that I highly respect and with whom I rarely find disagreement, proposes a different view of the significance of one issue in an election process, writing “everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.” (See the antecedent hyperlink for the full article and bibliographical information.)

          I should also say that even the most simul justus et peccator among us vote both righteously and selfishly at the same time. As I have said elsewhere,

Preserving what we each value the most serves as the motivation for almost everyone’s vote. It would be difficult to find anyone who votes from a purely selfless stance, i.e., “this is in the best interest of the entire country.” Rather, we each vote from either a “survival” or “success” stance. Those who have experienced financial and/or material success generally care about issues that will ensure that such success is maintained. Issues of survival seem trite to them. In contrast, those attempting to survive, or to get to a certain level of social achievement—whether that is to gain the American Dream so as to get out of coal mining and Black Lung disease, to get out of a neighborhood of poorer schools and crime to the suburbs, or to keep from losing all they have earned in life—generally do not concern themselves with the issues of the successful. They want mobility, access, opportunity and aid.

What person of success would selflessly vote in the interest of those needing aid at his own expense? And what citizen simply trying to survive would vote for smaller government, although this would certainly be the wisest and best choice for any successful business owner? Yet believers are called to consider others better than themselves, to deny themselves, and to care for the poor, needy and oppressed. This calling cannot be set aside as one exercises one’s right to suffrage (”Believers at the Ballot Box,” Beauty for Ashes Magazine [July/August, 2008]).

While it might seem a contradiction for Christian African Americans to vote for Senator Obama, each of us votes with many contradictions in both the righteous and selfish hopes of having the best possible earthly government and society. Such hopes yield appointments of pro-life justices and unjust war decisions. But when we “pull the lever,” we vote our consciences, our blind spots, and unknown future actions of our candidates and those in their selected cabinets and staff. At best, going to the ballot box as believers is one great act of hope in the God who rules all things for good, who “removes kings and sets up kings,” and whose “dominion is an everlasting dominion” (Dan. 2:21; 4:34). It is best that we look to his Son for true hope, identity and justice. This is the only way any of us will stop throwing cards on the table each election cycle.

Postscript (Summer Reading List)

I think this is a good time to suggest that our Summer Reading should include City of God (Augustine), Christ and Culture Revisited (Carson), The Souls of Black Folk (DuBois), The Invisible Man (Ellison), Leviathan (Hobbes), The Abolition of Man (Lewis), Animal Farm (Orwell), Modern Fascism (Veith) and Race Matters (West). If you want to understand more about the ways of African Americans, consider The Decline of African American Theology (Anyabwile), Experiencing the Truth (Carter, et al.), and Where Are All the Brothers? (Redmond).

© Eric C. Redmond, 2008.

I see a good sign over the horizon. There is a blog about Barak Obama and John Kerry at LaShawn Barber’s Corner. Is that a political blog? Is this a return just in time for the national conventions and the home stretch to November? If it is a return, give me a seat just off thrid base about four rows up! LaShawn’s insights are intelligent.

Experiencing the Truth: Bringing Reformation to the African American Community (Crossway, 2008) is available! A description of the book can be found here! Purchase a copy for an African American pastor, and, if Baptist, for any African American chairman of deacons and chairman of trustees that you know.

Thank you Pastors Carter, Jones, and Leach for a great work! Thank you, Crossway, for supporting the work of Reformation in the African American community with great publications.

Below is my endorsement on the book.

____________________________

“Experiencing the Truth gives great acclamation to black (African-American) church worship, black preaching, and the black Christian experience, rightly showing the strength of Reformed theology for each of these traditions. It also provides a rapier diagnosis of a churchgoing people whose tryst with liberation theology has birthed a practice of Christianity that is too badly deformed to produce a kingdom of God-like presence in the African-American community. The authors offer a careful narrative of orthodox Christianity with a faithful and proper emphasis on the Reformed confessions, creeds, and solas so that African-American believers can find themselves tied to a pre-Middle Passage Christianity without sacrificing their own identities to the heroic personalities of the Reformation. I am excited about a book that would dare to suggest the “irrepressible urban beats” of Fred Hammons’s Bread of Life and van Dyke’s Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee sung to an arrangement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony could be used together to enhance our corporate worship experience! Carter, Jones, and Leach have wed the African-American Christian experience with the Reformation so graciously that that those proud to be the ethnic and religious descendants of Dubois, Douglas, and King can relish equally in their spiritual heritage from Calvin, Luther, and Edwards. The analysis, synthesis, and directives of this collaborative treatise may represent one of the most important works since the now classical observations of Frazier, Lincoln, and Mamiya, for in this work the authors call us to be a church where our need for God can be fulfilled rather than a religious organization that meets people’s self-serving desires. I hope Experiencing the Truth will be an impetus to move the African-American church from the self-deprecating darkness of theological liberalism into the divinely nourishing the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

Graciously, I was invited to The Paul Edwards Show to discuss Senator Obama’s Father’s Day “sermon” (?), the problem of absentee fathers in the African American community, and Where Are All the Brothers?   (For listeners to the program, my previous post on Jeremiah Wright and Liberation Theology can be found here.)  I probably should rejoice that the speech places the final answer in Christ, even as Paul rejoiced from Rome with the Phillipians that the Gospel was preached - even when out of ill-motives.  Yet I hope our pulpits will be centered around the Gospel every Sunday. As I state in the above post (which, chronologically, is after this post), there is a new book coming that I hope will contribute to a recovery of the Gospel in African American pulpits.

 At the Vital Signs segment of the bet.com Lifestyle page, there is a May 30 posting entitled, “Why Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Doesn’t Work.” The author suggests that abstinence-only programs are not beneficial to the African American community. I have printed the text of the article below, and my responses to the author’s statements are in the red paragraphs. The line of reasoning is similar to that of those who are for acceptance of homosexual lifestyles within the African American church, to which I have responded in the last chapter of Where Are All the Brothers?   Abstinence will work for those with the power of Christ, for abstinence is really possessing our bodies in holiness and honor (I Thess. 4:4), having been cleansed by the power of Christ:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God, (I Cor. 6:9-11, ESV).

Here is the text and the response:

There’s a sex crisis in our community and the government doesn’t want us to talk about it.

Blaming the Government will not solve the problem. The Government is only responsible for 1) equal governing of all, 2) defense from enemies within and without, and 3) equal justice to all. Not one of these items has been breached by reminding us that sexual relationships are reserved for heterosexual, monogamous married couples.

Abstinence-only conversations have ruled sex ed classes at federally sponsored programs and health clinics for nearly a decade. But, Black teens ARE having sex and getting sick from it. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Infection recently reported that its first of its kind study of 14-to 19-year-olds found that Black teen girls had the highest overall prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Nearly half of the Black teen girls they surveyed had at least one STD, and they didn’t get them from being abstinent. What other proof do we need that abstinence-only programs don’t work?

The presence of STD among 14-19 year old girls does not necessarily mean that abstinence-only programs do not work. It could mean that no one takes them seriously, but if taken seriously by the user they would work. Or it could mean that teens are not gaining enough support from the social institutions outside of school and health clinics – the location of sex ed classes – to be faithful to abstinence—institutions like boys’ and girls’ clubs, or houses of worship. Or it could be an indicator of the effect of the breakdown of the family upon teen sexual patterns – that no one at home is giving attention to teen sexual habits. (As you say below, parents are the first line of defense. Is it right to assume parents are defending?) Or maybe there are sufficient flaws in the educational content of such programs that they are not truly abstinence-only programs, for some abstinence-only programs are showing success.

Let’s face it. Our girls are having sex and they don’t know how to protect themselves. Parents, you are the first line of defense. If you don’t know what to say to keep your daughter safe, talk to somebody, or have your daughter talk with someone who does – a doctor, health counselor or other adult your daughter trusts. We also need to stop being so righteous about sex. With all the mixed messages teens are getting from music, videos and their friends, we can’t afford to keep burying our heads in the sand. They’re not getting what they need to stay safe and it’s our fault.

Teaching abstinence is not the same as ignoring a threat. It is an alternative to giving away the responsible teaching on the proper place for a sexual relationship. It is an attempt by a minority segment of American society to counter the messages from the majority culture that come through music, videos, and ignorantly- or ill-informed and irresponsible peers. In fact, what is needed is a righteous approach to sexual relationships—one that puts the breaks on the sexual messages coming from the alternative outlets. If the music industry made a 180-degree turn to sing of abstinence and make videos of the same, what might the effect be? Of course I am being facetious, but you get the point: abstinence programs themselves cannot be faulted for the statistics on teen sex or teen STDs.

Get off your high horse. Get teens girls information, not just about sex, but about living with dignity. Check out actor Hill Harper’s latest book next week called “Letters To A Young Sister.” It stresses that one the most important sex talks you can have with a teen girl may be about respecting herself. It also tells teen girls to ”define your destiny,” shaping your future to whatever you want it to be. Talk with teen girls about her goals and dreams and about rising above her circumstances, and about delaying sex.

You are right: we need to teach our daughters about dignity! We need to teach them that it is indignant to give away their virginity and deepest emotional desires prior to marriage. We need to teach them that the way to gain respect is to hold young men at bay sexually so that they can stand out among their peers rather than be one of the girls known to be loose, free, easy, or available. Respect comes by uniqueness in high standards rather than by commonality in low standards. This is the part of one’s “destiny” that must be defined – that must be made into a conviction, not simple a goal. Might I suggest that Vicki Courtney has a book that every mother of a young daughter should read?

But also talk with her about how love doesn’t mean going to bed with someone she THINKS loves her just because he says so, or having sex just to keep a boy. And, most importantly, talk with her about using a condom every time she has sex. Let her know that if the young man she’s interested in doesn’t care enough about her to use a condom, kick him to the curb.

Is it necessary to have a “don’t, but if you do” conversation? If this is the alternative to abstinence, then how will you curb STDs based on your line of argumentation? You only have made a lesser form of abstinence: “Abstain from those who will not use condoms. Other guys are OK.” Does this prevent things transmitted through oral sex? Does this deal with the emotional desires and confusion brought on by having sex while young and unmarried? What will make this lesser-abstinence program more successful? Aren’t you being “righteous” about condom-use-only sex? Isn’t your head in the sand about young girls participating in sex without a condom? Is “don’t, but if you do” defining one’s destiny, or is it not saying, “do not strive for the highest goals?” Will this solution increase conversations about (responsible) sexual behavior or feelings of “love” toward young men? Once moms and dads OK condom use, why have any more talks with their girls? Isn’t the problem solved? Also, if we give the “don’t, but if you do” talk, will this be enough to say we have talked with our daughters? If so, then we will not need thereafter to talk with a doctor or a health care professional, for they should not be able to say any more than this, right? Or maybe, just maybe, a doctor or health care professional might go one step further and say, “young lady, the safest thing you can do to prevent contracting a Sexually Transmitted Disease is to refrain from participating in sexual acts until you have married someone who is committed to sexually enjoying you only, and then maintaining your mutual sexual fidelity.” I think this is better than saying abstinence, in either form, doesn’t work.

I am stepping out of my hiatus for one post because I have been provoked by thoughts on elders in Baptist life. In the most recent issue of Deacon magazine, Greg Pouncey, Pastor of First Baptist Church Tillman’s Corner, Mobile, Alabama, contributes an article entitled, “The Reemergence of Elders in Baptist Life” 38:4 (Summer 2008): 28-31. I found a fair and balanced discussion in the article for the most part, although I wish the article could have given more space to the analysis of the Scriptures; (but I know that editors place limitations or word count on these types of articles). Yet I took issue with the section on “potential weaknesses of the elder system” (31).

        As one who is pastor of a congregation that has recently transitioned to an elder-led congregationalism, I am quite excited about the men Hillcrest has affirmed as “Acting Elders” from April through October, 2008. I hope many other Baptist churches will experience the joy of having men leading who have the highest composite of Christian character, who are skilled to teach the whole counsel of God, who hold a clear vision of the relationship between Christ, his work, and the kingdom of God, and who serve alongside of their senior pastor in shepherding the people of God through meek, Christlike service.

I am printing my response here because I doubt whether a response this long would be printed in “letters to the editor.”  I have written it as a letter to the author of the article.

May 27, 2008

Dear Brother Greg:

I appreciate your article, “The Reemergence of Elders in Baptist Life.” The article was most irenic and very gracious toward those who have come to embrace a model of pastor, elders, and deacons within congregational life. You were very careful to avoid inflammatory terms and words of accusation. I felt that your brotherly tone was a mark of Christian character being carried over to the written page. Thank you for demonstrating grace.

While reading your article I noted several items to which a response seems important. My concern is that some omissions, along with the selected “potential weaknesses” given, might give those skeptical about elder leadership the wrong idea about what Biblical elderships means for a local congregation. Armed with your article as the approach to this issue, members of congregations might find good reasons to dismiss altogether what Scripture has to say about elders.

Here are some of the concerns I see, along with some responses and suggestions:

1.    It is true that “today, most leaders of the church carry the title of pastor,” and the term used for pastor “signifies a shepherd who tends herds or flocks and renders care and superintendence over his flocks” (29). It is equally true that “pastor,” as a title, only occurs once in the New Testament in Eph. 4:11, a passage you recognize in relationship to the charge of pastors. Might I suggest you remind people that we recognize a distinct office of pastor based on this one reference in Scripture primarily, although elder or elders appear at least 15 times in the context of church leadership (and overseer/overseers 6 times)? Might I also suggest that it we be good if we inform our audiences that there seems to be more written about elders having a duty to shepherd (Acts 20:28; I Pet 5:2) than there is about pastors having a duty to lead the church?

2.    You write that the terms shepherd and overseer(s) “seem interchangeable, as seen in I Peter 5:2, where the overseers are commanded to ‘shepherd God’s flock among you’” (29). You are correct in noting that these terms show some polysemy (but not ambiguity). However, it is elders, not overseers, who are commanded by Peter to “shepherd God’s flock… overseeing” the people of God. Might I suggest this correction so that your audience hears more accurately what the Scriptures say about these offices? This will help congregationalists to see that elders are to “render care and superintendence over” their flocks, just like the one given to the church as a gift-office—the pastor.

3.    In your brief discussion of the work of elders in the early church in Acts, you rightly discuss how they closely worked with the Apostles. But in this brief narrative, you left out a handful of very important appearances of elders in the early church. First, you did not mention the appointment of elders in every city in Acts 14:23. (You did mention the appointment passage in Tit. 1:5). This passage is important as it seems to support the idea of the appointment of elders being part of a “Pauline Cycle” in the establishment of a “Pauline Cycle” in the establishment of new churches.¹

        Second, the charge by the Apostle Paul to the elders at Ephesus is not mentioned. Of great significance in this passage is that Paul can declare himself innocent of accountability for the lives of the members of the church in Ephesus because he has taught the elders the whole counsel of God, modeled before the elders a life conformed to the whole counsel of God, and commended the elders to carry out their tasks by the whole counsel of God—“the word of His grace” (20:32). The accountability for the “blood” of the membership now rested in the hands of men called “elders.” If wolves among them would spill the sheep’s blood, it would be elders who would stand before God for the slaughter. Might I suggest you mention the weightiness of the charge to the Ephesian elders, so that even if people still conclude that there should be a pastor-deacons model, they must hold deacons to this standard of accountability for their souls?

Third, the approach of James and the elders to challenge Paul’s teaching on the Law in the Diaspora is worth mentioning (Acts 21:17-26). It is clear that James is distinguished among the elders, but the elders have authority within the Jerusalem congregation to approach Paul for the sake of the believers in Jerusalem. Might I suggest that you include the fact that Paul submitted himself to the suggestion of James and the elders? Providing this information will allow your audiences to consider the significance of this for the elders’ discussion.

4.    Related to the comments about the early church, there is no mention of the role of elders in responding to the sick-bed confession of a repentant church member (Ja. 5:14-15). James is one of the earliest NT epistles, reflecting some of the earliest established ecclesiology within the church. It would seem that the elders in the churches in the Diaspora had authority in discipline, for restorative purposes—that is, for the good of the church. Might I suggest you include this most positive aspect of the responsibility of elders so that elder leadership might be seen for the good that it is? For your readers and listeners this will help round out a picture of the elder in the early church.

5.    You have recognized a Biblical distinction between deacons and overseers (29). Might I suggest that you go one step further and indicate that nowhere in Scripture are deacons ever given the authority to lead or rule, but only to serve? This is so, in spite of the fact that The Baptist Faith and Message uses language that is ambiguous about the distinction in the roles of the two offices.

6.    When considering the reasons for reemergence of elders within congregationalism today, you conclude that “though churches who have elders appeal to Scripture as their authority, practical issues in the church seem to be the driving force for the reemergence of elders in some churches” (30). This is your opinion, which is to be respected as such. However, it is given without support. I would be concerned that someone prejudiced against the concept of Biblical eldership could use this to suggest Scripture is not the driving force behind the reemergence of elders. Scripture drives me, for one, in looking at God’s plan for his Bride. I think many of our Baptist brothers would say the same. Further, may I suggest that the existence of the perception of a pragmatic motive behind the reemergence is really admittance that our churches are weak in their care and governance in the current models (which you also seem to suggest)? May I go even further than this and say that the congregational men I know who have recovered an elder model have done so in the vein of the Conservative resurgence, i.e., a return to inerrancy and its implications for the life of the church? Also please note that a return to a Biblical model is intended to solve the problem of immature or erring membership (Acts 20:28; Tit. 1:9), which, as a “practical [issue],” is common to much of congregational life? I believe your discussion would achieve greater balance with these inclusions.

7.    You express concern about the unfortunate scenario “when one elder gains more influence than necessary and dictates or intimidates the board to do as he wishes” (31). I share this concern. However, please know that if this danger exists, it exists inherently in the teaching of the New Testament, for it is there that elders are given “rule” and “oversight” (cf. Act 20:17ff, I Tim. 5:17; Tit 1:9-10; I Pet. 5:1-2). Authority – that is, godly, God-given, stewardship authority, but authority nonetheless – is given to elders by their responsibility. It is a lead-by-the-whole-counsel-of-God-and-Godly-example-authority, but it is still authority. I am not suggesting that the Lord should not have prescribed such rule to men, for his will is perfect, bringing him glory and fulfilling our joy. I am suggesting that a corruption of power is a risk we take when we choose to live by grace in a world yet to experience the fullness of redemption. This is why it is extremely important that churches give earnest care to making sure the men they nominate and affirm as elders meet all of the qualifications of elders. Such men would be devoid of a power-mongering trait. Might I suggest that you make it clear that damning the alternative is not a proper means of reasoning for one’s preferred position? May I say further that if the concern you expressed is reasonable for elders in rule, it is equally reasonable for any who are in rule? I have been a member and leader in four Baptist churches in my life. In my experience it is common for one or more deacons to exhibit exactly the type of despotism that you depict in your caution about elder rule. Congregations in the pastor-and-deacons model should be concerned about deacons who exhibit ungodly rule and a lack of humility even as much as they are concerned about this on the part of their singular elder known as the pastor.

8.    Your last suggested potential weakness of the elder model, “the congregation might become detached from the workings of the church since they have little to say in anything other than the major decisions of the church,” suffers from two flaws. First, elder led churches are intended to be congregational. The intent of changing or transitioning to elders is not to hide information from the congregation or remove them from the decision-making process. This is a common misnomer about elder-led churches.

    Second, there is more to church workings than the “vote” (or “say”) of its members. If voting on financial matters, property acquisitions and disbursements, and leadership change is the crux of what keeps congregational saints feeling connected to the (workings of) church, then we are primarily (only?) connected by our feeling able to be in control of the direction of the church. Subtly this is saying that we are connected as long as we have power. However, connectedness does not require power, just as service does not require a title. If members are serving one another and are serving the lost, enjoying Christ-centered fellowship, demonstrating Biblical hospitality, meeting the needs of the saints in love, and praying together, they cannot become divorced from the life of the church—the real workings of the church.

    What is needed to maintain connectedness to the working of the church is a recovery of the communion of the saints. Whether elder-lead or otherwise, the members must take up the responsibility to exercise this aspect of meaningful membership. If the concern is about the display of the Gospel among the congregation, then members will find themselves involved in church life as “members of one another” (Rom. 12:5). A church with this sort of maturing membership, guided by men who meet the qualifications of elders and who are carrying out their duties faithfully, would be a great force for the proclamation of the Gospel to places where Christ’s name is not yet known.

Greg, thank you for a good start at approaching an important issue in Baptist life. May the Lord’s grace be upon you as you lead his people by means of the whole counsel of God, including all that it teaches about elders. I hope to see you at the Annual Meeting in Indy in two weeks. If you will be there, let’s make plans to greet one another. I’ll set aside a copy of my book to give to you, my brother in the Lord.

Sincerely,

Rev. Eric C. Redmond

Pastor, Hillcrest Baptist Church

Second Vice President, Southern Baptist Convention

1. David J. Hesslegrave, Planting Churches Cross-Culturally, 2^nd ed. [Grand

 Rapids: Baker, 2000]). Elders, as this view argues, were a normal part of

establishing each church; (see “every church” in 14:23).

I am taking inventory of all things, so as to redeem the time. I am not sure when I will be back. April 1 to June 30 are weeks of overloaded scheduling. I am going to work on getting priorities in the right order. I hope to be back.

Thank you if you are visiting this site because of today’s story in the Prince George’s Gazette, “Pastor Addresses Skipping Church,” or because of today’s post at Townhall.com (and carried at Crosswalk.com), ”Is Jeremiah Wright Mainstream?” The tab to the book, Where Are All the Brothers?, is above the first post in a tool bar line for this site’s pages. The Amazon link is at the top of the right side bar. I am appreciative of your visit.