It was on Election Day that this column was written. It was early in the morning and this columnist had yet to add his one vote to the process.
The mid-term election campaigns of 2006 were among the ugliest in recent memory. The million-dollar coffers accumulated to run political campaigns had funded vicious media attacks upon their opposition. Normally voters living in Oregon would not be interested in a Virginia senatorial campaign or in a Tennessee race; but the campaign antics made for high drama or low comedy. The late-night television comedians had a field day. The most despicable contemporary touch to campaigning is the recorded voice message which gets placed on telephone answering machines. Welcome or not, the candidates are in your face.
In perspective, the American campaigns always have been spirited. Mudslinging goes back to the stump politics of another century. In the old days, candidates really faced each other in no-holes-barred debates rather than today's sanitized television debates with their predictable responses. If you want to define ugly politics just read about the political process during the days of Andy Jackson, Abe Lincoln or Grover Cleveland.
Despite all its flaws—the divisive party system, scurrilous campaigning, potential for corruption, and disasters in ballot counting—the American democratic election process remains the best system. When this voter enters the voting booth, he believes that an almost sacred act occurs. His one single vote is registered. It is a precious right for which the founders and patriots of old stood fast. It is our most intimate participation in the governing of our nation.
It is the Baptistic way! With their congregational form of church government, traditional Baptists operate their churches as democracies. One of Virginia's most revered sons, Mr. Jefferson of Albemarle, was said to have taken “his first impressions of a pure republic from the simple organization and government of a small Baptist church … in [his] neighborhood.”
The church polity of the old-time Baptists helped define them as a distinct people from others. The Episcopalians placed authority in the hands of a single individual, the bishop. The Presbyterians devised a model with a small group, the elders, in charge of decisions. The Baptists believed that each individual member was important and even competent in decision making. They held that a collection of those members, the congregation, was capable of self-government. It was a stroke of genius.
Walter “Buddy” Shurden, the dean of Baptist historians, put it this way: “Baptists practice democratic church polity not because it is more efficient or more reliable or even more biblical than other forms. They follow it because it accents the role of the individual within community, allowing the greatest freedom for the greatest number of people to have a say. Moreover, democratic church polity is a statement of the equality of all believers in determining the mind of Christ. Baptists would like to think that it provides more freedom for the Holy Spirit to guide the life of the local church. Even here, however, Baptists have never equated the voice of the majority with the voice of God.”
Is the time-honored Baptist model of democratic rule without flaws? Hardly. In too many churches, decisions are made by the few who bother to attend a church business meeting. Is it apathy and boredom or simply trust and confidence? The root causes are probably similar to why only a small percentage of eligible voters bother to go to the polls. In some churches the process has been tainted by internal problems. Party politics, cliques, interest groups and even dictators can be found inside church walls. Another charge against the old-time Baptist way is that it is cumbersome. It requires process according to church bylaws. It requires time, thought, quorums, reasoning and reasonableness.
One of the greatest threats to the old Baptist model is the cry for modern efficiency. The polity used by some of the super churches is fondly held up by an increasing number of Baptist-background pastors as an example for modern efficiency. These churches often use a system of elders selected by the pastor or tapped by the congregation. In numerous cases, the pastor was even the founder of the church or one of the founder's successors. Decisions are made by the elders and the clergy. Congregational decision making is kept at a bare minimum. Democracy is replaced by a form of theocracy and rule of the few.
In 1856, D.C. Haynes compiled one of the early handbooks on the Baptists. He wrote: “The rights of church members are to the sympathy, and love, and watchful care of each other. They all have an equal voice and vote in all church matters. Each member has the right of private judgment …” Of course, the old-time Baptist church governments mirrored civil government in the customs of the times. In antebellum days, equality meant some were more equal than others and equality belonged to white males. Given human nature, even some white males were more equal than others. But the times and constitutions changed.
A century ago, Edward Hiscox's Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches insisted that a Baptist church's government was “administered by the body acting together, where no one possesses a pre-eminence, but all enjoy an equality of rights; and in deciding matters of opinion, the majority bears rule.”
Hiscox continued: “The pastor exercises only such control over the body as his official and personal influence may allow …. His influence is paramount, but not his authority. In the decision of questions, he has but his single vote. Much less have the deacons any authoritative or dictatorial control over church affairs. Matters of administration are submitted to the body and by them decided.”
It is church democracy where each individual member matters; and like our civil election procedure, while it may be flawed, it is the best system.
Fred Anderson is executive director of the Virginia Baptist Historical Society and the Center for Baptist Heritage and Studies. He may be contacted at P.O. Box 34, University of Richmond, VA 23173.