Author: Kirk E. Miller

Ecclesial Crossbreeding: When Elders Answer to No One

Kirk E. Miller

Exegetical and theological differences aside:

Elder (presbuteros)-rule church government (polity) historically developed within an ecclesial ecosystem of broader presbyterian accountability structures. In other words, when the elders of a particular church (its “session”) functioned as its utmost governing body—as opposed to the congregation—those elders (session) were nonetheless governed by and accountable to its broader ecclesial system of accountability (e.g., its local presbytery, consisting of elders from other local congregations). Thus, although elder-rule existed, those elders’ authority in their church was not unchecked or absolute.

On the other side, congregational (e.g., Baptist) churches are autonomous, meaning each local church completely governs itself. It may affiliate with other churches (associations, conventions, etc.). But the church remains self-governing; there is no ecclesial authority that exists over it and governs it.

These churches have historically been congregationally governed, i.e., the members of the church (congregation) serve as the utmost governing body of the church. Certainly its congregationally appointed elders exercise a measure of delegated authority, but they remain accountable, in this case to the congregation.

In short, historically speaking both forms of elder-rule and congregational polity maintained mechanisms of accountability for its elders. Elders were never a pure, independent, unaccountable governing body in either system. In elder-rule, they had outside accountability from the elders of other churches in their denomination (known as presbyterianism). The accountability came from “above.” In congregational churches, the church (the congregation, the members) itself held them accountable. The accountability came from “below.”1

A dangerous—and from what I understand, historically aberrant and novel—iteration then are those churches that borrow from both these worlds, but thereby isolate pieces of these polities that were never meant to exist independent of their larger ecclesial commitments. Thus you get churches today that are autonomous but elder-rule. In short, the elders are not accountable to anyone, neither the congregation or an overseeing presbytery.

It’s dangerous and ripe for abuse.

Notes

  1. I mean “below” or “above” in terms of hierarchy, not value. ↩︎

Honoring God with Our Complaints (Laments)

Kirk E. Miller

Honoring God with Our Complaints: A Case for Laments
Faith Community Church
January 5th, 2025

Podcast link.

Do You Reach Out When Church Members Leave?

Kirk E. Miller

Church member, when someone resigns their membership and leaves your church, do you take the time to reach out to them?

If someone leaves your church due to a life transition, such as moving away for work or school, I hope you connect with them, say goodbye, and pray for them as they go. But I also have in view those who leave for other, often unannounced, reasons. What about those who leave? Do you also reach out to them to care for them as they go?

What if you made it a point to never let a fellow member leave without reaching out to them?

If we take church membership seriously—as a covenant to the church and to one another—then our commitment to fellow members certainly includes caring for and looking out for each other while we are members of the same church. Being a part of a church involves promises and obligations to every member.

But it would also seem that part of honoring that covenant means caring about members as they leave and caring enough about the circumstances that led to their exit. Or do you simply cut ties, as if their departure doesn’t matter?

Consider what it communicates when someone leaves a church only to have zero—or very few—show even the most minimal amount of care so as to reach out. Departing from a church is often a difficult decision, at times occurring under already painful circumstances. For no one to reach out likely adds to that pain, making such people feel forgotten, neglected, like they apparently must not have mattered much to those who were once their fellow members, of no consequence to the very church they once called “family.”

Perhaps you’re thinking, “But that’s uncomfortable.” When, though, was church membership ever about your own personal comfort? Christlike community (see Phil 2:4b) involves caring enough about others to endure any personal discomfort for the good and care of others. It requires de-centering ourselves: our comfort and interests are not the priority (Phil 2:4a).

2:4a Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 2:4b Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.—Philippians 2:4

How I Use Logos Bible Software (with Jason Stone)

Kirk E. Miller

Jason Stone recently invited me on to talk about how I use Logos Bible Software. (We barely scratched the surface!)

    Some follow up clarifications and answers to questions that were raised:

    1. The reason I couldn’t find any good examples of notes in the NET is that I had closed the NET and was accidentally looking at notes in the ESV notes—whoops!
    2. I’ve made my Custom Guide public, which can now be accessed here.
    3. Regarding the Information Tool, this page states, “You can change the settings so that the Information tool updates when you click a word instead of hover over it by clicking the panel menu icon  and selecting Click instead of Hover in the Update on: section. To freeze the Information tool: highlight a word or phrase and hold down the Cmd key (Mac) or Ctrl key (Windows) when moving the mouse.” In other words, use Cmd, not Shift, to lock a selection when set to hover.
    4. I confirmed, I have HALOT prioritized over NIDOTTE. However, it seems that the Information Tool provides a prioritized dictionary resource before one’s prioritized lexical resource. So that’s why NIDOTTE appeared on top in that instance.
    5. For those looking to subscribe to the Notes on ESV translation updates, you can find out how to do that here. I learned this from Mark Ward.

    Higher Suicide Rates Among Autistic Individuals Due to Exclusion—Churches Are No Exception

    Kirk E. Miller

    Trigger warning: Some of the following quotes mention suicide.

    Some quotes of interest from some reading I was doing today:

    Conner, Caitlin M., Amy Ionadi, and Carla A. Mazefsky. “Recent Research Points to a Clear Conclusion: Autistic People Are Thinking About, and Dying by, Suicide at High Rates.” The Pennsylvania Journal on Positive Approaches 12, no. 3 (November 2023): 69–76.

    “[A]utistic people are more likely to die from suicide than non-autistic people. Autistic people are also more likely to have suicidal ideation and to make attempts.

    Based on rates from a recent meta-analysis (statistical analysis to combine rates from published studies on the topic), 20% of autistic children and teens reported suicidal ideation in the past year, and 10% reported suicide attempts. Non-autistic children and teens comparatively report rates of 14.2% for suicidal thoughts and 4.5% for suicidal attempts. This suggests that the rates of suicide attempts are double in autistic children and teens compared to non-autistic children and teens.

    The comparisons for adults are even more striking. For autistic adults, 42% reported suicidal ideation in the past year, and 18% reported attempts. In studies of people who were first diagnosed as autistic in adulthood, over 60% reported having suicidal ideation. Comparatively, non-autistic adults reported rates of 4.8% for suicidal ideation and 0.7% for suicidal attempts. Therefore, available data suggests that autistic adults are 25 times more likely to make a suicide attempt than non-autistic adults. …

    One reason for higher rates of suicidality in autistic people might be that many known risk factors (that increase a person’s risk) for suicide are also more likely in autistic people. The most commonly cited examples of these risk factors are depression and lacking social support, but other risk factors common in both suicidality and autism include rumination (getting ‘stuck’ on negative thoughts and emotions), loneliness, difficulties with problem solving, difficulty using coping skills when upset, experiencing trauma or abuse, and being impulsive. …

    Studies have also examined protective factors (related to being less likely to have suicidal thoughts or behaviors) like social support, finding that autistic adults’ feeling of having supportive social connections is associated with a lack of suicidal thoughts or attempts. …

    Additionally, research has shown that there are potentially unique risk … factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in autistic people, like masking their autism characteristics, autistic burnout, and sensory overload. … [O]ften autistic people experience suicidality as a reaction to repeated negative social experiences.”

    Cynthia Tam, Kinship in the Household of God: Towards a Practical Theology of Belonging and Spiritual Care of People with Profound Autism (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2021).

    “Among the different disability groups, Ault et al. found that individuals with autism were the least likely to receive welcome and support in the faith communities [Ault et al., “Congregational Participation,” 58].”

    “[B]y examining the data of church attendance in the American National Survey of Children’s Health over the ten years ending in 2012, Andrew Whitehead discovered that young people living with autism were consistently the least likely to be attending a church [Whitehead, “Religion and Disability,” 387.].”

    “People with autism are commonly portrayed as people living in their own world, not interested in social relationships, and unable to empathize with others’ emotions. … This way of understanding autism is constructed based on societal norms for acceptable behaviors.”

    “However, if we listen to the voices of people with autism published in recent years, we will hear that they do want to have social relationships with others. More often than not, we, people in society, are responsible for the communication breakdown and the failure to connect with those living with autistic experiences.”

    “What does it mean to be a church for everyone? It is, to state the obvious, to suggest that church communities are not always as welcome and loving towards those whom they consider to be ‘strangers.’ Despite the fact that the central doctrine of the Body of Christ informs us that we should be a community where difference is present, but never divisive, many congregations still struggle to include people with particular forms of difference. Time and again we find stories of people with disabilities being excluded from congregations… The church has become a place of struggle rather than welcome.” (John Swinton, “Preface”)

    “Thomas Reynolds calls the church that sets up social boundaries between the abled and the disabled, the ‘cult of normalcy’ [Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 59–60]. ‘Normalcy,’ according to Reynolds, is a ‘cultural system of social control’ [Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 49]. It presumes a certain bodily appearance and the ability to be representative of a community’s identity. As such, it marks out who can and cannot belong to the community. To belong, they have to be like us.”

    “Once we understand how the perception of people with autism is socially constructed, examining how we currently belong as a church … will show sharply the societal norms that have crept into the church. Instead of valuing all members of Christ’s body, the church has adopted societal standards such as independence, productivity, physical appearance, and appropriate behavioral etiquette in how we welcome and value each other. … Discovering how we perceive and receive members with unique differences will also cause us to re-examine the nature of the church and how we belong as a community. The ultimate goal is to reimagine the Christian community as God’s loving family in which members, regardless of differences in abilities, stand in solidarity with each other.”

    Michael R. Emlet, Autism Spectrum Disorder: Meeting Challenges with Hope (Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press, 2023), 15–16.

    “[W]e who are more neurotypical must not jump to conclusions about what is sin and what is not. Our tendency may be to shade the truth a bit to protect our reputation, or to tell someone what she wants to hear to avoid a conflict. … There is something to learn here from someone on the autism spectrum. After all, they find it difficult to be sneaky or deceitful, and their honesty catches us off guard.

    Let’s not forget the strengths that individuals with ASD can bring to the table: unique and creative insights, passionate and exhaustive knowledge of particular subjects, ability to think visually and systematically, intelligence, and a quirky sense of humor, to name a few.”