I firmly believe that the answer to almost every question about church growth, strength, and soundness can be answered by the response: study the scriptures. If your congregation is not growing its because your members aren't educated enough in God's Word to know that they should be growing and how to go about it. If your congregation is weak, by definition they lack knowledge of the Word and the only way to solve that is to study. If your congregation is not sound in doctrine its because they don't study the inspired scriptures.
There are a number of things I've come to some conclusions on right now:
Commentaries can be useful for individual study, much like studying directly with the person who wrote them. However, they must never be treated as a source of authority. Too often, doctrinal positions are defended by appealing to what “brother so-and-so” said rather than to scripture itself. Brother so-and-so is not inspired, and his authority is no greater or less than that of any other uninspired teacher, including myself. If a point is valid, it can and should be demonstrated from scripture. I am interested in scriptural arguments, not secondhand appeals to someone else’s conclusions.
In addition to the problems caused by progressive influences that have led some congregations toward denominational structures, there is also a danger on the opposite end of the spectrum. Certain conservative institutions risk recreating a centralized authority model similar in structure - though not identical in doctrine - to Catholicism. Preaching schools and colleges have, in some cases, accumulated disproportionate prestige and influence and have begun to shape or dictate practices beyond their proper scope. As a result, the autonomy of individual congregations is increasingly strained, with only a few strongly independent congregations actively defending it. The solution to this issue begins with reaffirming congregational autonomy and resolving matters at the local level, as discussed earlier. I will reserve further comments on preaching schools and colleges for later discussion.
It is important to clarify who and what I am. Many people reject labels for themselves while freely applying them to others. Used carefully, labels can be helpful - they provide broad categories that make discussion more efficient before addressing specifics. Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” function in this way. If a label must be applied to me, the most accurate one is simply biblical. I do not align fully with either of the dominant camps or their subcategories. Those who approach scripture by adding to it for personal or ideological reasons find my position incompatible with theirs. Likewise, those who elevate tradition, commentary, or institutional authority above scripture find little common ground with me. My approach is straightforward: I read the Bible and interpret it using the Bible itself as the sole standard. I may consult commentaries to understand various lines of reasoning, but any position I accept must be defensible from scripture alone.
If we engage in discussion, it must be conducted honestly and with a genuine effort to understand one another and establish common ground. Without that foundation, meaningful dialogue is impossible. When this approach is absent, it indicates to me that the goal is not unity rooted in the spiritual fruit described in Galatians 5, but argument for its own sake or the advancement of a personal agenda. In such cases, I will respond according to the wisdom expressed in Proverbs 26:4–5.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie