The reason, however, is probably not polity. It is far more likely that the problem lies within our hearts. Maybe we do have one of those polities which, to expropriate Adams’ words, is “better fitted for being well administered than others.” Very well, but let us heed Pope also, and administer it well and faithfully.

It has been roughly a year since the evangelical and small-c calvinist worlds were embroiled in the ongoing collapse of Mars Hill Church and the once booming ministry of Mark Driscoll. A cascade of revelations, from plagiarized material to authoritarian abuses to dishonest financial practices all resulted in the collapse of Driscoll’s reputation and, ultimately, the loss of his ministry.

In the midst of this disaster Evangelical Fix-it Man Paul Tripp™ was flown in to become part of something called the Board of Advisors and Accountability, which was patterned after the apostolic institution of the…uh…never mind. As the disaster broadened, even Paul Tripp™ bailed out, stating on his way out the door, “This is without a doubt the most abusive, coercive ministry culture I’ve ever been involved with.”

Now as always happens when a large ministry fails, everybody with an agenda had an explanation. The gays said it was all because Driscoll is a homophobe, the feminists blamed his chauvinism, and so on. Confessionalists like myself were likely to point to the absence of restraints such as clear doctrine and a defined polity: after all, the dude was having sex dreams about his parishioners and managed to convince them it was because he’s a prophet. When it takes a revelation of the artificial inflation of book sales to bring down a ministry like that, the dearth of confessional wisdom is palpable.

Among the critics from the confessional end were a few Presbyterians loudly insisting that such a thing could not have possibly happened within Presbyterianism; the book of order would prevent it.

Now to be honest, I respect Presbyterian polity. It represents an honest, thoughtful, serious endeavor to apply the principles of Scripture in an orderly and disciplined manner. The absence of any similarly honest, thoughtful, and serious endeavor at Mars Hill was obvious. There was, however, one fly in the Presbyterian ointment: the involvement of the ubiquitous Paul Tripp™, who is, you see, a Presbyterian.

Fast forward one year, and the same calvinist world is again aflame with controversy, this time over the collapse of Tullian Tchividjian, the latest celebrity pastor flame-out. In the span of one wild summer Tchividjian resigned his mega-pulpit, confessed disqualifying sin, was visited by Paul Tripp™, filed for a Paul Tripp™-sanctioned divorce, was deposed from ministry by his presbytery, and  was promptly hired as Director of Ministry Development at a church down the road. One difference in this case was that the entire episode was Presbyterian: the church Tchividjian formerly pastored and the one in which he has now been established in semi-office are both part of the Presbyterian Church in America.

That “THUD” you just heard was the sound of a lot of Presbyterian rhetoric abruptly hitting the ground. Apparently, things really are different in the PCA. Driscoll, who by all accounts remains faithful to the wife of his youth, has not yet returned to ministry (unless one counts Hillsong interviews), while Tchividjian has been hired to a ministry position less than a month after filing for divorce following his own infidelity.

Does this episode prove the emptiness of the Presbyterian system? Far from it; it is instead a reminder that the best of systems must be administered by good men in order to get good results. Alexander Pope once wrote: “For forms of government let fools contest / That which is best administered is best.” John Adams called this utter folly, responding “Nothing is more certain from the history of nations, and the nature of man, than that some forms of government are better fitted for being well administered than others.” Yet Pope and Adams each had a legitimate point. Some systems are superior, yet no system is sufficient unless it is operated by competent and upright men. A sound system of government is like a healthy body which must be indwelt by a hearty soul; the right men in that government are the animating soul by which liberties are preserved.

Further, what is true of the state is in this instance equally true of the church. In the absence of a righteous polity we get Driscoll, but where righteous polity is administered by unfit men we see instead Tchividjian.

Why is good polity not enough? The answer is simple: faithless men will find their way around any set of rules unless faithful men prevent them from doing so. Over at the Bayly Blog, David Bayly has described the workaround which large PCA congregations have been allowed to develop so that they might escape the consequences of their own book of order. In order to hire or fire a pastor in the PCA (or other forms of Presbyterianism), a congregation must submit to the oversight of the presbytery – the regional gathering of elders and ministers overseeing a number of churches. This is intended to put a brake on local congregations and to ensure careful deliberation over these all-important staff decisions. According to Bayly, though, large churches have begun to appoint persons as “directors” rather than “pastors” in what have been traditionally ministerial positions. A “director” need not be approved by presbytery, regardless of what actual duties he performs within the church. As a result, a church might appoint a person who is un-ordainable under the PCA book of order, for doctrinal, gender, or even – as in this case – moral reasons. Tchividjian’s appointment at a PCA church is only the most public such case.

In other words, Presbyterian polity did not fail; it was circumvented. The right system cannot generate the right results unless it is administered by the right men.

The comparison of the two scandals ought to serve as a lesson to Reformed Baptists. The temptation for us (I wonder how many of us have already said this) is to repeat the error of last year’s Presbyterian apologists – to loudly insist, “Nothing like this could ever happen in a Reformed Baptist church!” If that is so, the reason is that we don’t have any churches large enough for the broader evangelical world to notice when we fail (or for Paul Tripp™ to parachute in and fix everything). But let us not imagine that our polity has somehow eliminated the scourge of mendacious leadership!

The Particular Baptists also had a polity which represented an honest, thoughtful, serious endeavor to apply the principles of Scripture in an orderly and disciplined manner. That polity is being slowly learned and implemented in the modern Reformed Baptist movement. It differs from Presbyterian polity in certain respects – one of the most important of which is the direction of accountability when discipline misfires.

In Presbyterianism, the accountability is upward and further upward. A disputed ruling of the session (the local body of elders) may be appealed to the presbytery (a regional body) and further to the General Assembly (a national body). It is, in other words, a hierarchical system, though differing from episcopacy in that it is not ultimately overseen by a single ruler but by a broader deliberative body. The Baptists, who persist in seeing the local assembly as the essential unit of “church” this side of Heaven, developed a different system.

Accountability among us is first and foremost inward, in that pastors are accountable to one another within the church and also to the membership of the church. Consider these definitions:

In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word. Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world. (1689 Confession, 26:5)

To each of these churches thus gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he hath instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.   (1689 Confession, 26:7)

A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members…        (1689 Confession, 26:8)

To summarize; power and authority originate in Christ, and he has granted needful power and authority to churches, which are defined as local assemblies consisting of officers and members. Accountability for individual actions, whether of the officers or members of the church, is thus primarily inward, to the whole congregation, and through it to Christ our Head.

But another level of accountability exists, which is not upwards but instead outwards. The Confession also says the following:

In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification; or any member or members of any church are injured, in or by any proceedings in censures not agreeable to truth and order: it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together, do, by their messengers, meet to consider, and give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted with any church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons; or to impose their determination on the churches or officers.         (1689 Confession, 26:15)

It should be evident that this is not the Presbyterian system, in which presbytery and general assembly are “intrusted with church-power.” It is, however, quite clearly asserted that when the exercise of church authority is disputed, we are required by our confessional commitments and ordination vows to submit those exercises to external review. While the external messengers lack the authority to impose judgment, it is hoped that shining the light of day into a congregation’s actions, and the presumed removal of church communion which could follow, will have a salutary effect.

What we have, then, is a distinct system from Presbyterianism, but one which,like Presbyterianism, endeavors to pay heed to the biblical principles by which all churches must be governed, namely: 1) the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ over the church, 2) the careful application of the authority and power he grants the church through orderly processes, 3) a mutual and prayerful respect between the officers and members of every congregation, and 4) a similarly mutual and prayerful respect between like-minded congregations which serve under the same Head. It is, in other words, a serious polity worthy of serious Christians.

But will it preserve us from a badly mishandled scandal? No, not if we trust in polity alone. Forgive my transgression of theological categories, but right polity cannot save ex opere operato! To avoid scandal, or rather to handle it rightly when it comes, we need grace from on high. For this reason our polity must be pursued carefully and prayerfully by upright and humble men. Otherwise it will fail. We may wish to say that such terrible scandals as Driscoll and Tchividjian have perpetrated could never happen under our polity, but as our Presbyterian friends have discovered, they might! In fact, brothers, I would say that they have, only not so publicly.

Too much of our history has been occupied with circumventing confessional polity for us to imagine ourselves immune. Pastors and elders have sometimes acted as though the confession said that a particular church, entrusted with authority and power from Christ, consists of officers – full stop. Some have openly tried to apply Particular Baptist polity without any reference to the last two paragraphs of chapter 26, going so far as to call the Baptist confession “un-Baptist”! Along the way have been plenty of mishandled and un-handled scandals which – mercifully – the wider evangelical world has simply ignored. I don’t imagine that we couldn’t have a Driscoll or a Tchividjian in our ranks; we’ve in fact already given those two a run for their money in our own small corner of the Christian world.

The reason, however, is probably not polity. It is far more likely that the problem lies within our hearts. Maybe we do have one of those polities which, to expropriate Adams’ words, is “better fitted for being well administered than others.” Very well, but let us heed Pope also, and administer it well and faithfully.

Source