Different discussions you see and hear about church government as Baptists assume a type of congregationalism. Yet it’s rare in such discussions that anyone presents a definition and defense of congregationalism. I want to address that issue. Certainly in church life, Jesus stands as the sole authority over his church (as Dr. Russ Moore says, “the church is not a democracy by a Christocracy”); but Jesus has vested the final earthly authority under him to the congregation as a whole. But what does this look like, practically speaking?
Biblical congregationalism is about a priesthood proclaiming Christ. The Bible says that we are a holy/royal priesthood, and the two main texts on this are 1 Peter 2:4-10 and Revelation 1:6 with 20:6. Of course 20:6 talks about being a priesthood in the millennium who rule with Christ, and therefore your interpretation is going to be dependent upon your eschatology so for our purposes here we’ll focus on 1 Peter. And Peter tells us exactly what the purpose of this priesthood is: “to offer up spiritual sacrifices” which involves proclaiming “the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness and into his marvelous light.”
I have heard, several times, congregational decision making (as in: business meetings where every member has an equal vote) defended based upon the concept of the priesthood. Yet, the priesthood as Peter describes has nothing to do with decision making but everything to do with preaching Christ. Simply put, this means every church member is a preacher—we are all to proclaim the One who saved us from our darkness and brought us into the true light. As a church body—a congregation—we proclaim Jesus together to the world around us.
Biblical congregationalism is about members of a body serving and ministering to each other to build each other up in Christ. There are a couple of different places we can look for this, such as 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. The Holy Spirit gives particular gifts to each member, part, and joint in order that we might serve each other. In this service we meet each other’s needs and help each other mature in Jesus. True spiritual maturity occurs within the life of the body, for not only does one member grow but the entire body grows (at least in a healthy body).
If we are truly congregational our primary concern will be for the needs of other members for the sake of the maturity of the church. And, of course, this isn’t about getting our way nor having our say. Rather this is about considering others more important than ourselves and looking out for their interests (Philippians 2:3-5).
Biblical congregationalism is about confirming who belongs to the body and who does not. Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 contain those passages we often use in reference to “church discipline” but there is so much more going on there. That whole binding-and-loosing in heaven thing, it all has to do with recognizing who belongs to Jesus and who does not based on a person’s testimony in combination with a person’s life.
This is why if a person is walking in sin and they refuse an individual and 2-or-3 person rebuke, you take them before the church. It is only the congregation then who, after pleading for their repentance, has the right to rebuke them in such a way as to say, “You are like a Gentile and a tax collector to us.” In other words, “You are a sinner who has shown that you do not belong as a part of this body because you have not truly turned to follow Jesus.”
“Where two or three are gathered in my name” tells us the congregational body, no matter how small or large, has an authority the individual Christian does not: to say to someone, “You belong, welcome, my brother/sister,” or, “You do not belong, turn from your sin and follow Jesus.”
Biblical congregationalism is about affirming, appointing, and submitting to qualified leaders. Each established church is responsible for affirming the call of and appointing the men who fill leadership positions in the church (Acts 6:1-7, 1 Timothy 3:1-13). But they affirm and appoint trustworthy men who they then submit to and follow (Hebrews 13:17). There’s a reason the Bible uses the terms elder, overseer, and shepherd to reference the church’s primary leadership office.
They are elders, in part, because they are trustworthy men of character who have proven themselves good managers through the care of their families and can therefore care for the church in a loving, fatherly way. They are overseers because they provide careful watch and guidance over all aspects of the life of the church body. And they are shepherds because they lead the sheep to feed in green pastures and rest beside still waters.
Yet in most Baptist churches such leadership is hampered because instead of submission, the churches have redefined congregationalism to mean the shepherds must wait for the sheep to raise a hoof in a vote to tell the shepherds where to lead. Does anyone else see the problem with that picture? And some say the shepherds lead in spiritual matters but the congregation makes other decisions; yet I say: show me that divide in Scripture, for spiritual and physical are much more intermingled than that especially in the human experience.
Now, let’s be clear: this submission is not a blind submission. If the elders/overseers/shepherds lead in a way that is contra-Christ, domineering (contra-1 Peter 5), or greedy, or their lives fall into moral disqualification, then the congregation has the responsibility and authority to remove such leaders. They are to follow shepherds, not wolves and thieves.
But if the Bible says submit and calls such leaders shepherds and overseers, then true congregationalism will affirm and empower their leadership by submitting and following, and it will not neuter leadership by attempting to dictate terms.
This comes down to a trust issue: do you trust your leaders? Do you believe they are truly men of character as described in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1? If yes, then why not trust them to lead and make decisions in a godly manner? If no, then the question needs to be asked: is there a reason why you do not trust them? If you have no reason, then the problem is you and you need to repent. If you have a reason not to trust them, then why continue to affirm them as shepherds?
This is also where a church sorely needs a plurality of leadership. When a group of men function together as elders/overseers/shepherds, they are able to hold each other accountable and rebuke those who stray into the sin of ungodly leadership (1 Timothy 5).
In conclusion… Biblical congregationalism is not about church business meetings, committees, and voting privileges. It is about a body that bands and works together to proclaim Jesus, build each other up, confirm each other’s testimony and membership, and affirm and follow godly leadership. Let us seek to help our churches grow as the body of Jesus in this world!
Excellent article, Mike.
I think sometimes we confuse congregationalism with a particular structure or style of church management. Good reminder.
Nice article. My favorite line was:
🙂
Love the post –
Most of those “hoof-raising” churches say it is based on the principals of free will, choice, and democracy… like our founding fathers in the US.
However most of them do not know or refuse to know that the founders were opposed to democratic rule…
Democracy = Mob Rule.
Mob-Rule is no where to be found in the Bible. Not even the oft mis-cited passages of Matt 18:17 or Acts 6:1-6 can really support mob-rule. Matt 18:15-20 is about the process of confrontation and reconciliation through the church (as opposed to a civil courts process) depicting the gathered believers as the final court of pleading (not prosecuting). As for Acts 6:1-6, that isn’t congregational democracy, that is pastoral leadership: they directed the congregation to go about solving the problem a certain way, not form a committee and debate solutions and then vote on it.
Excellent article and explanation of what an elder led church looks like.
Good post and thinking, trying to get at the “core” meaning of congregationalism.
Tim Keller has an excellent article called something like “Church Size Dynamics” that addresses some of what I see is the tension between various definitions of “Congregationalism” out there. The smaller the church, the more input every single member has on every decision. The larger the church, the more responsibility falls onto staff and various more specialized groups like committees to make decisions that are no longer plausible or time-effective to have 500 members all vote on in business meeting. I think one of the keys is continuing to have that congregational oversight in some capacity (whether it’s by maintaining their responsibility in the final approval of staff, pastors, the overall budget, approving/dismissal of members) even when the church grows beyond the “town hall meeting” type government.
By focusing on the core values of congregationalism, as you have written here, I think churches of various sizes could find the biblical freedom to apply those principles for their particular church, its size and its cultural background as well.
Hey Mike, you said:
And Peter tells us exactly what the purpose of this priesthood is: “to offer up spiritual sacrifices” which involves proclaiming “the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness and into his marvelous light.”…the priesthood as Peter describes has nothing to do with decision making but everything to do with preaching Christ.
Yes, preaching Christ is “involved” in what it means to offer up spiritual sacrifices and thus does not exhaust its meaning.
If I remember correctly, I agree with Tom Schreiner’s commentary on 1 Peter (I don’t have it with me) in which he interprets the offering up spiritual sacrifices as having to do with general spiritual activity. And a part of general spiritual activity would include preaching Christ.
Based on this interpretation, I do believe what Peter is saying has implications for church government. No longer is there to be a passive covenantal membership who “receives” ministry from priests who “administer”.
All are priests now and thus as ministers should be engaged in the decision making of the church IMO. Even the apostles turned a potentially huge problem over to their fellow priests–a young congregation (Acts 6).
Concerning pastoral leadership, I think pastors should be feeding the church good doctrine which would then influence the concrete decisions made by the congregation.
Obviously this model of church government I have given above can only function well upon the basis of a regenerate church membership.
Based on this interpretation, I do believe what Peter is saying has implications for church government. No longer is there to be a passive covenantal membership who “receives” ministry from priests who “administer”.
All are priests now and thus as ministers should be engaged in the decision making of the church IMO. Even the apostles turned a potentially huge problem over to their fellow priests–a young congregation (Acts 6).
Yes, all are priests, but not all are shepherds.
Unless I’m missing something…decision making for the congregation wasn’t a part of the OT priesthood. Ministry certainly is.
I would say that the first two things I mentioned in my post fit the category of priestly activities. But I don’t think Acts 6 is an extension of that.
And the Apostle’s in that situation didn’t give the congregation full say in that particular decision. They said, “Here’s the problem, here’s the solution we believe is best, select 7 who fit these qualities, and we’ll assign them to this.” That’s different than saying, “Here’s the problem, what do we do?” Or even, “Here’s the problem and 3 solutions, pick the one you think is best.”
>And some say the shepherds lead in spiritual matters but the >congregation makes other decisions; yet I say: show me that >divide in Scripture …
Perhaps it’s because I’m not a minister, but I’m a little hesitant to say the Congregation’s only three duties are hiring, firing, or submitting. Acts 6 seems to be establishing a principle that money wasn’t handled bishop/elders, but by deacons. That structure survived up through Spurgeon, at least.
I think we do a disservice young pastors if we act like any friction with the congregation is a sign of sin, when it’s the role of the pastor to mediate and guide. I suppose my Congressman, duly elected, has no duty to show up at a town hall meeting, or explain why he does what he does. But I don’t count it disrespect or sin to tell him why I disagree with his decisions, or to vote against him when I have the chance. Life together in the church is, necessarily, political in the traditional sense — working out life together, iron sharpening iron.
Perhaps it’s because I’m not a minister, but I’m a little hesitant to say the Congregation’s only three duties are hiring, firing, or submitting.
I think here you’re confusing the “congregation’s duties” with the business side of leadership in the church.
The duties are: proclaiming Christ, building each other up, confirming testimonies (and bringing discipline to those who choose to walk in sin), and appointing/affirming leadership. That’s the entire point of this whole thing:
We too often wrap “congregationalism” into the notions of modern day politics and business practices that were never a part of the early church.
And I get and mostly agree with your point about disagreeing w/ decisions and ideas of the pastors–but… here’s the question with that: if you truly believe your pastors are godly men of upmost character (not perfect mind you, as none are, but strive to meet those qualities of 1 Timothy and Titus and 1 Peter), who the Holy Spirit has made overseers (Acts 20) and you as part of the congregation have affirmed that in calling them… then if you disagree w/ them, yes, vocalize it to them and let them know why, but if they take that and think about it and pray about it and still say, “No, we need to head in this direction,” is it better to vote them down or to follow them as the godly shepherds they strive to be and submit to their leadership?
Of course, that doesn’t make them right 100% of the time–but God has given leaders to the congregation (Ephesians 4:11) for a purpose…and that is to lead/to shepherd…
It seems that many these days want to defuse historical Baptist interpretation of congregationalism to mean “nothing” save for following “God’s leadership” even if it means over a cliff. Save nothing of the lessons taught and learned during the Reformation in difference to the Roman hierarchy. And if that was not enough this same emphasis (almost word for word as the article above) found in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles with the likes of Henn/Hagin/Copeland demanding servitude because they are “God’s anointed.” And if THAT was not enough, the various scandals found in even Southern Baptist life among those entities we call “Mega” who in the main long ago disposed of congregationalism for the more “manageable” Corporation model.
While I am the under-shepherd of my flock I know who I am not – The True Shepherd who is truly our one and only Leader. I have a congregation of counselors whose job is to lend a hand, support in prayer, provide guidance and support, and provide a check and balance against ecclesiastical corruption – something that while exists in SBC churches has been placed as a minimum because of our adherence to the principles of “congregationalism” – minus the deconstructive attempt to disclaim it provided to us by this article.
Rob
I think you’re trying to make this article say more than it does. Re-read the section on submission not being blind and I think your concerns are addressed there.
It seems that many these days want to defuse historical Baptist interpretation of congregationalism to mean “nothing” save for following “God’s leadership” even if it means over a cliff…. And if that was not enough this same emphasis (almost word for word as the article above) found in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles with the likes of Henn/Hagin/Copeland demanding servitude because they are “God’s anointed.”
Now let’s take that and contrast it with what I actually said:
1. They are elders, in part, because they are trustworthy men of character who have proven themselves good managers through the care of their families and can therefore care for the church in a loving, fatherly way.
2. Now, let’s be clear: this submission is not a blind submission. If the elders/overseers/shepherds lead in a way that is contra-Christ, domineering (contra-1 Peter 5), or greedy, or their lives fall into moral disqualification, then the congregation has the responsibility and authority to remove such leaders. They are to follow shepherds, not wolves and thieves.
3. This is also where a church sorely needs a plurality of leadership. When a group of men function together as elders/overseers/shepherds, they are able to hold each other accountable and rebuke those who stray into the sin of ungodly leadership (1 Timothy 5).
Now, um, how again is what I said equal to suggesting the congregation follow leaders no matter what, and promotes the attitude of leadership of those “demanding servitude” b/c they are “God’s anointed”???
If you’re going to disagree with my post, at least disagree with my post and not a false caricature…
You do have a redeeming quality Mike in that you 1)served in Sedalia and know Marlin Brown and 2) are a graduate of University of Oklahoma. And while I never attended college there, I am Sooner Born and Sooner Bred and when I die I’ll Be Sooner Dead (Boomer Sooner)!
Your point 1 demonstrates the chasm of our positions. I love my folks as “brothers and sisters” as “equals” not in “fatherly love.” That position is reserved for one only, the one and true father Jesus Christ. Congregationalism (which in my mind is biblicism) says that while my role may be the under-shepherd and it may include the banner of leadership, that leadership is never from a high a lofted “up” position, but the “down” position. “Those that are first will be last, and those that are last will be first.” Unless I am willing to encourage and prod my folks into the work, then indeed what is to stop them from calling me “Father Rob.” That is what I thought when I read your article.
Benji makes some great points which you have not responded to as yet.
Rob
Mike,
Now brother, I never said all were shepeherds 🙂
Concerning the general spiritual activity (as I see it) of priests offering spiritual sacrifices up to God, I would think part of that activity would be submitting to the direct headship of Christ as the church moves together as a whole.
Christ speaks directly to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation. Christ [through Paul] speaks to local churches in books like the book of Galatians.
He does not speak directly to pastors who then in turn are to teach the congregations as if there is someone in between them and Him
We obviously don’t have living apostles on earth any more. We don’t even have someone exactly like Timothy.
We do have churches with Christ as Head who tells the church to be of one mind, for example:
In relation to this, I think A.H. Strong captures the tenor of N.T. congregationalism:
“These exhortation to unity are not mere counsels to passive submission…they are counsels to cooperation and to harmonious judgment. Each member, while form his own opinions under the guidance of the Spirit, is to remember that the other members have the Spirit also, and that a final conclusion as to the will of God is to be reached only through comparison of views. The exhortation to unity is therefore and exhortation to be open-minded, docile, ready to subject our opinions to discussion, to welcome new light with regard to them, and to give up any opinion when we find it to be in the wrong. The church is in general to secure unanimity by moral suasion only; though, in case of willful and perverse opposition to its decisions, it may be necessary to secure unity by excluding an obstructive member for schism. A quiet and peaceful unity is the result of the Holy Spirit’s work in the hearts of Christians. New Testament church government proceeds upon the supposition that Christ dwells in all believers. Baptist polity is the best possible polity for good people.” (Pg. 904 in Systematic Theology)
Mike,
Most translations I have seen do not give a sufficient nuance, IMO, to the first word in Hebrews 13:17 (the new NIV is an exception though).
The Greek word has the idea of being persuaded by leaders in the church. I think this is the kind of thing church members might pray for when they say something like “Father, please be with our pastor as he brings us Your word, and prepare our hearts to receive what he has to say”.
So, I think there is a nuance going on in Hebrews 13:17 that is different from the kind of obedience God expects a child to give to his earthly father.
Anyway, I think A.H. Strong in his Systematic Theology has some good things to say here as well:
To put the whole government of the church into the hands of a few is to deprive the membership of one great means of Christian training and progress. Hence the pastor’s duty is to develop the self-government of the church…That minister is most successful who gets the whole body to move and who renders the church independent of himself. The test of his work is not while he is with them, but after he leaves them. Then it can be seen whether he has taught them to follow him, or to follow Christ; whether he has led them to the formation of habits of independent Christian activity, or whether he has made them passively dependent upon himself. (Pg. 908) (bold mine)
It should be the ambition of the pastor not “to run the church,” but to teach the church intelligently and Scripturally to manage its own affairs. The word “minister” means, not master, but servant. The true pastor inspires, but he does not drive. He is like the trusty mountain guide, who carries a load thrice as heavy as that of the man he serves, who leads in safe paths and points out dangers, but who neither shouts nor compels obedience. (Pg. 908) (bold mine)
Mike,
Now that I have thought about it, I think I understand where you thought that what I was saying was that all members are Shepherds.
When I spoke of all members of the church as being ministers, I was speaking in relation to Ephesians 4:12 where Paul talks about the equipping of church members for “ministry”.
Mike, you have written a good presentation of the case for congregationalism with elder leadership. You have especially taken care to offer a balance to the rule of elders with the thought that it is not blind submission. This is something that has concerned me about the Reformed aspect of the CR. Some due to influences totally extraneous to the SBC have introduced Elder-led church government, relegating the congregation to a rubber-stamp position. I was once a member of an elder led church, and I beheld believers abdicate their responsibility for taking a full and contributing part in the membership of that church. Later, the pastor simply appointed who would succeed him without the church even having a vote on the issue. funny, it led to splits, and even that pastor in retirement left the membership with one of the splits. Congregational church government with elder leadership by example and with the support and backing of the congregation is the actual doctrine of Baptists. A few churches have inclined to the elder government that is practiced among the Presbyterians, but event he Presbyterians find at times that they cannot stomach dictatorial elders. Government in a Baptist church is a matter of balance between the congregation and the minsiters with the Congregation, being the body, having the final say. The Ekklesia of the Greek City State to which every male citizen belonged in the days of Ephesus, Athens, Corinth, etc., was a deliberative body of people, one in which every member had the right and the duty to speak, act, participate. Evidently, from the NT usage, it is clear that the assembly that we call the church is of like nature in its government. The church of the NT added women to the membership, and thus they become participants with the same rights and responsibilities as the male members. A careful study of the ekklesia with reference to females does not establish the hierarchial view point of Roman Catholicism. Hierarchy works fine in Heaven, where no sin is. On earth, it must fail due to the sinfulness of man. You dare not trust anyone with too much power…as power corrupts.