How Committed am I to the Bible?

I've been thinking a lot lately about how committed am I to the truth of the gospel and other biblical doctrines which I am firmly convinced of. A good bit of this introspection is the result of a semester with Dr. Black in New Testament 2. In that class we were constantly pushed to go back to the New Testament and discern what it had to say about sundry matters. I've also been thinking a lot about the priority of the local church in body-life. The seminary, and so many other para-church organizations, has come in and completely taken over much of what biblical local churches are responsible for. I'm growing to believe that the most commonly held paradigm for training and hiring elders is almost totally unbiblical. As I sit through classes at SEBTS and listen in on conversations around campus, it's truly amazing to me that some people think they're on the road to biblical eldership. They might not use the term "elder" or even hold to an ecclesiology that allows for elders, but it makes no difference: it's the only paradigm the NT knows.

In the past few days I've been reading John Hammett's new book, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, and I suppose that has a bit to do with getting the ol' wheels in my head a turnin'. In this book Hammett is seeking to define what a church is, who a church is, how a church is governed, what the church does, and where the church is going. I'm a little bit over half way through the book. The first two sections are good, it's hard to be a conservative baptist and not have a good definition of what and who a church is. Regenerate church membership is one of his strongest arguments in this section, however, as he continues to flesh out the implications of regenerate church membership in his section on how a church is governed, things start to unravel. His arguments for congregationalism are almost entirely pragmatic. He even admits in several places that congregationalism is a pragmatic conclusion. At one point he goes so far as to say the following, I was shocked:

"In the end, they [the congregation] are the ones who must give financially to support the ministry he [the pastor] envisions; they must act if the church is to love and reach and disciple people as he desires. They are far likelier to give and act on plans they have had a part in developing. And, if the members are maturing spiritually, why would a church or its pastors want to cut themselves off from the wisdom they may contribute?" (p.211)

I've digressed into the subject matter of the book instead of going where I had intended with this post, so if you don't mind, I'm going to get back on track and not comment on that quote. I don't think I can handle it right now...

So, like I was saying, I've been thinking a lot about my commitment to the Bible and it's principles. As you may be able to tell already, I'm specifically concerning with church polity and my role in the local church. Here are some things that I'm struggling with:

1. What is the role of para-church organizations in the life of the local church?
2. What is my personal conviction concerning my responsibility to act on what I believe to be biblical?
3. Where should I be focusing my energies at this point in my life?
4. Is pursuing a career in a Bible-college or seminary setting right for me?
5. Where are my priorities? Am I more concerned with earning a degree and getting a job or with 1 Tim. 3:1-13?

For as much as I dislike Hammett's pragmatism, I see so much of it in myself. I'm afraid that I may be paralyzed by the thought of having to start from scratch to get into a career of any other sort than the one that I'm currently pursuing.

When I was at NGU, loving the Bible and theology and the things of God seemed to me to be a clear pointer to further studies in order to one day be able to teach those things to others. Now I believe that loving the Bible, God, theology, etc. is something that every Christian ought to aspire to, not just the seminarians. Like a good friend of mine pointed out the other day, the qualifications in 1 Tim 3 are not reserved for elders and deacons, they are necessary for all believers. It's not the elders who are barred from drunkenness and immorality, it's every Christian: thus, every Christian male should either be aspiring to be an elder or a deacon. I don't know if I'm ready to say every, but I think probably most, and if they're not aspiring to the office, they should at least be serving in those ways unofficially.

I apologize for the sporadic nature of this post, all this is compounding in my mind and heart, and has spilled over here. I simply desire to be true to the Bible and it's teachings. Any thoughts or suggestions?