Thread by @bartbarber

I thought I'd take a moment to comment upon this video of @plattdavid addressing a moment of disunity at @mcleanbible.

I do so because I write sometimes on the subject matter of polity. Public moments like this are teachable moments.

I am a committed congregationalist. I am thankful that McLean Bible Church practices congregationalism—that affirmation of pastors/elders/overseers requires congregational approbation.

Before saying what I got on here to say, I want to add this caveat. I don't know how McLean Bible prepares for making decisions congregationally, nor do I know what the process looks like when it happens.

I am proceeding from the assumption that the meeting provided a forum in which people with concerns could articulate them and make their case to the congregation before voting. If that is indeed the case…

…then what has happened here is what frequently happens when true congregationalism confronts pseudo-congregationalism.

Pseudo-congregationalism (when an attempt is made to build a cabal and take control of the church) can be contrasted with congregationalism (when a congregation seeks to build consensus about what the will of God is and then cedes control to the Lord).

I have written before about Pseudo-Congregationalism. praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2012/07/pseudo…

In this case, I will add this: You should vote based upon what you hear IN THE MEETING, and you should downplay what you hear IN THE LOBBY. Pseudo-congregationalism loves the lobby; biblical congregationalism prefers the meeting.

In the lobby, you can offer any falsehood you like. After all, you've selected an audience. You can speak in the lobby without the circumspection that is necessary when those who can credibly rebut you are also in the conversation.

But in the meeting, things are different. EVERYONE is invited into the conversation in the meeting.

The dictators who manipulate Pseudo-Congregationalism are terrified of such meetings.