Well, the question is really, church reform if you're not at least an elder (not just if you're not the pastor). And I don't think church reform is possible if you're not in a position of leadership.

You have to have at least one elder that subscribes to or has the goal of attaining the 9 marks.

What was your capacity in KY? Was it at least as an elder? I think the gentleman's post could have been a post about the whole leadership going in the wrong direction.

The leadership is suppose to have care over your soul. I don't think the flock should be reforming the leadership.

As a laymen you have to submit to the authority and leadership of those who have care over your souls. How can a layman change the direction of one who is supposed to care over one's soul.

The problem in your scenario Carlo is that most Baptist churches have no idea about Biblical elders and deacons. I learned first hand (as a seminary educated layman) that without some good leadership already there the pastor and the reformed folks he may attract have little chance. Praise God he is soveriegn.
Grace Alone,
Greg

Hi Carlo,

Thanks for writing. I was a layman at Third Avenue until I was elected to be a deacon. That made a bare majority on the deacon board, and so we moved to start formally reforming the church. It was a good two-and-a-half years then before we had elders.

Greg G

I guess there are two Gregs, right?

Well, I think this one of the problems I think of the church polity of Baptist churches, even though, I agree more theologically with them, the PCA has the right form of church government. You don't have single independent churches in the Book of Acts. That's another argument.

Yes, the Lord is sovereign and I think Greg G. will have some great ideas for reforming churches, but I think it is very precarious for the laity to be reforming churches.

Paul was very engaged with ongoing strengthening and encouraging of leaders in the church and he trained those leaders how to do it.

He also established leadership in the churches. There was solid leadership in the church and ongoing pastoral care. Note, it wasn't the other way around.

Obviously you had a gift, Greg G. for leadership, perhaps some training, some leaders in the early church would have actually been young in the faith. But anyway, I think the advice should be offered with the cautionary note: it's generally not the call of the laity to establish good leadership in the church. It's the call of other leaders to establish leadership in the churches.

I do believe that lay folks can reform a church, but...very big but...they can't stay just folks in the pew. The main teacher must see the need and be dedicated and those lay folks must as Greg G said and did, move into the leadership. That part is that the Teacher trains leaders, those existing who are open and those who are "new." For reform to really work it needs two prongs and I don't know if one needs to come first. I have heard of revival and reform starting with pastors and layman. But both the congregation and the leadership (shouldn't be such a big difference between them in my Baptist opinion).
In Christ Alone,
Greg B

I'm a little more optimistic about a layperson's ability to reform a church.

Or, if I could put it differently, a person's ability to PURSUE reform in a church needing it. You can be faithful by giving away books, especially to the leadership; eating lunch with the leadership; discipling people one-on-one; teaching a Sunday school class or home group; and leading your family well. In fact, since most unhealthy churches don't have a surplus of leadership, they will fall over themselves to move almost any faithful layman into some kind of leadership.

That kind of persevering influence could eventually result in leaders who pursue reform and then in a church that pursues reform and then in a healthy church.

Even if it doesn't get that far, whatever good you're able to do will have some benefit for others and probably the church as a whole.

It is terribly difficult -- and equally disheartening -- for the laymen in a church to attempt reform without some of the leadership on board. Even where, in my case, I am a deacon, without strong men in leadership, and support from the pastor, attempts to demonstrate biblical leadership and pursue church health meet with fierce resistance.

It is at this point that I would disagree, Andy, that unhealthy churches "fall over themselves" to have faithful leadership. In my church, for example, one can easily see that over a period of several years all the spiritual men who attempted reform have all left the church...not abandoned Christ's body, but been called away, I think, by God so that their leadership would not be wasted.

Most unhealthy churches seemingly enjoy their dis-ease, and resist attempts at healthy living.

In that case, at least, it seems a dual approach is best: to teach the spiritually hunger laymen what a healthy church should look like, which in turn will encourage them to demand excellence and biblical governance from the leaders; and attempt to teach the leaders that the way of church "business" is unfaithful to scripture, and that there is a better, more biblical way.

I would also add to what Rob is saying and that is the Bible clearly teaches that the Lord gave pastor-teachers to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. The leadership should be equipping the saints for the work.

Can God use men like Greg G who appears to have already been trained in the ministry and leadership to reform a church even if takes years? Sure he could.

But the person who wants to take this task must be a person who is already equipped and I don't know...like I said, extreme caution must be used.

Amen to Rob! My experience put much better than I did here and in the other blog comment to post.
Greg