A few days ago, we received the following question.  Lord willing, this week we'll take some cracks at answering it.

I would love to see an exchange on the blog or an article about  when it is time for a traditional church to make the move structurally (by-laws changes, votes, etc) toward elders? 

I’m in a traditional church with a growing number of pro-elder members who can sometimes get impatient with our slow progress toward elders.   I’ve addressed elders many times over the years as we have run into them in the scriptures, I’ve also had a professor from SBTS come in and make a Biblical defense for them.    I’ve also taught some classes on  the 9marks in small groups.    I’m also at the 7 year mark as their pastor, so I’m not a newbie anymore.

What kind of church support should a pastor look for to begin the formal and political process of changing the structure.    IE.  If 66% of the church is for it, which is the amount needed to change a by-law, is that the time.  Or, should a pastor wait and teach and preach till there is more like 90% approval for the move. 

The best way for me to contribute to this very important question would be to relate something of the history here at FBC Grand Cayman.  In God's kindness, after a couple of failed attempts, the Holy Spirit did a wonderful work.

First, a short history.  The church was founded in 1977.  It's first pastor, a retired IMB missionary, served until 1992 and governed the church by a democratically elected council of men and women.  There were no elders or deacons.  But the church would have regarded itself as a traditional Southern Baptist church, receiving Lottie Moon support and keeping abreast of some convention concerns.  In 1992, the church's second pastor, a graduate of SBC schools, began serving.  Apparently, he made some efforts at moving to an eldership but without success.  He served nearly eight years.  The church's third pastor, also SBC, served from 1999-2003.  He, too, made some efforts at establishing elders and deacons.  As I recall, he taught about elders from the pulpit and held a retreat with leader-type men in the congregation.  But his efforts didn't materialize in change either. 

One of the main issues was the role of women in the church.  Women had served on the council and it sounds as if getting productive elder conversations off the ground were hampered by this issue.  Then, for three years the church found itself without a senior pastor.  This is when the Lord began his wonderful work at reforming the church's polity.

The church formed a study commission to examine the Bible's teaching on church governance.  That commission met for over a year with lots of time for discussion, questions, objections, and so on.  At the end of the study process, the congregation voted unanimously to adopt an elder-led governance with deacons.  Because the church accepted the authority of the Bible on these issues, folks with concerns about women in leadership submitted to an eldership of all men once they understood and interacted with the Scripture.  Appropriate changes were made to the church's by-laws, etc.  The then only staff pastor led the church through a process of selecting its first elders.  In the end, six men were chosen and very effectively led the congregation through a couple years of very had providences.

When to make the change: When your people 'get it,' when your motivations are pure, when the change will be deep and lasting, and when you're bringing the entire church along joyfully with the change.

Just to unpack that a little:

1.  Sometimes when you think you've taught something, turns out you really haven't or the people didn't get it.  One series or a few sermons on the subject in a seven year period isn't enough.  If the folks have only heard it once, chances are you have folks who have come since then, some have forgotten, some didn't get it, and some have questions that are still unanswered.  In most cases, we need to teach some more, and teach until people (a) have their questions answered, (b) have their objections resolved, (c) assume the change you're trying to make, and (d) are probably asking you "why haven't we done this yet?"  One thing that helps with this is putting some things in writing.  Develop position papers as you go along and settle things.  Distribute 'frequently asked questions' with answers and supporting references/materials.  Teach in print as well as in word.  The guys with the study commission did an excellent job at that.  Change when you've made sure your people "get it."

2.  Sometimes when you think you've been patient, turns out you probably haven't.  A slow, deep move to a structural change is better than a rapid shallow one that can be ripped up by the roots.  Personally, I find patience tricky.  How to discern between my impatience and my lack of courage or resolve.  The men at FBC were to be commended for their patience because, as is often the case, patience produced a slow but deep and now unquestioned change for the good of the congregation.  If the guys who are with you are impatient, it's probably time to stop and pray, to examine your own hearts and motivations.  Since impatience is a fleshly response, it's never a sufficient reason to push change ahead.  Make the change when your motivations are as holy as possible.

3.  Sometimes we settle for some when we should strive for all.  Our highest hope should be unanimity.  And before we too quickly say, "But that's ideal," and settle for something less, we should really craft a plan to win the entire congregation if the Lord wills.  We shouldn't think and work in terms of "winning" by a simple majority or some other political expedient.  In the first instance, we should seek to win the entire congregation, to be of one mind and purpose.  That's why the frequent Q&A sessions and discussions were so helpful and wise in the FBC case study.  But in the second instance, it may be that you've done all you can to answer questions and objections and some people are simply unwilling to align themselves with Scripture.  I'd say consider two things before making the change: (a) what percentage does your current constitution require to make a change; that'll give you a floor; and (b) what percentage of your folks need to be won in order to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."  The constitution may only require 51%, for example.  But acting on that simple majority may carry the vote and lose the church.  Personally, on a structural change like this, I'd want a very clear super-majority or "mandate" of better than 80-85% or so.  Perhaps a 2/3 support level would be enough to support to announce a year of study and reflection on the issue.  And hopefully, you'll have the other 1/3 with you when the process is done.  Make the change when you're carrying as many people as possible along with you.   

4.  Sometimes we think we've finished the issue once enough votes are in hand, and can move on when the "Ayes have it."  But, I think there's an opportunity to serve the minority when you have a 2/3 vote in hand by waiting to gain the higher percentage.  You can demonstrate your concern for the people, for their understanding and the joy of their unity with you, by saying, "I know we have enough votes to make this change.  And I think this change is in keeping with God's word and therefore for the health of the church.  And because it's good for us, I want as many people as possible to joyfully come along with the change in full support.  I want us all to see that following God's word is 'win-win,' not primarily a political fight designed to produce 'winners' and 'losers'."  Or something like that.  Graciously make the position and direction known, while still patiently trying to bring others along with you.  Use your strength to serve the weaker brothers.  Sometimes votes carry, but the "losers" are simply waiting to fight another day.  Remember, you're laboring not only for this congregation but also so that future generations will enter into a healthy church should the Lord tarry. On structural changes, work very hard to eliminate that by giving every opportunity for people to join the "winning" side.  Then make the change.

Brothers, those are some first thoughts.  But I inherited healthy reforms achieved by others.  What say ye who have worked through some of these issues?