Church Government, Part 2

November, 2006

by: Jack Hughes

• The Church and Church Issues

In this Calvary Review we continue to examine the various kinds of church government. Boring? You may think so and be wondering if you should even read this article. Well consider how important church government is if the church you attend decides to make a radical shift in ministry philosophy. Who gets to decide that this radical change is okay? Who has the power to approve it? Or maybe you are in a church that is on the verge of splitting over some problem. The kind of church government you have all of a sudden becomes very important. In fact one of the first things people do when conflict arises in the local church is run to the constitution and by-laws to see who gets to have their way. Each person becomes a self proclaimed expert in constitutional church law. Often the battle switches from the original issue to the interpretation of the constitution and by-laws which will determine the outcome of the issue. It comes down to the all important question, “Where does the authority to rule rest in the local church and who is accountable to whom?” In the last Calvary Review we looked at what is called the episcopal form of church government. In this Calvary Review we will look at the congregational form of church government.

Congregationalism

Congregationalism is antithetical to the episcopal form of church government. Episcopal government puts all the ruling authority in the hands of a hierarchical group of popes, kings, cardinals, and/or bishops who make decisions for the elders of the local church. Local church elders then implement the instructions from those outside the local church. Congregational government, on the other hand, puts all the ruling and decision making power into the hands of the entire congregation. The title “congregationalism” comes from the fact that the congregation usually rules itself and makes the most critical decisions by popular vote or a democratic majority.

Congregationalism appeared shortly after the English Reformation began through the writings of Robert Browne. Browne wrote a treaty called "Reformation Without Tarrying for Any" in 1582. This document was later used by the Puritans who founded the Massachusetts Bay colony. Various denominations like the Congregational churches, Baptists churches, Evangelical Free churches, Community churches, etc., often subscribe to congregationalism in one form or another. Browne, in his treaty, argued for the autonomy of the local church and its right to rule itself apart from external bishops, magistrates, or the state. This was a radical idea at the time, even among many reformed Protestants. The Church of England saw itself as radical in removing itself from the Church of Rome with its pope, cardinals and bishops to establish a church where the king was head and where there were no popes or cardinals. Yet the Anglican Church only moved one step away from Rome, still holding to the same form of church government. Browne was seen as a radical, not just modifying the accepted form of church government but proposing a completely different approach. Because of this, the concept of having each church be autonomous was not well received by those in the Church of England but many Puritans agreed with Browne’s basic concept of local church autonomy.

It is understandable why someone like Browne would propose local church autonomy. Local churches had a history of being oppressed by popes, cardinals, and bishops. It was frustrating for local churches to have someone outside their church body make decisions for them when those outside often knew little or nothing about that particular local church. Local church offerings then went to support a system that ruled without giving any representation at the local level. This is why Browne’s idea of local church autonomy was well received by many. It also had some scriptural weight on its side as we shall see.

The problem though was not with Browne’s basic concept that each local church needed to have its own autonomy, but the problem was the application of that principle. An autonomous church, for instance, can appoint a single bishop to rule that particular local church with absolute power and authority, or they can give absolute authority and power to the congregation. Either way, as long as the local church decides for itself, on its own, how it is to be governed, they can fit under Browne’s basic concept. This is why you can go to different churches who subscribe to a congregational form of government, even within the same denomination, and discover radically different applications of “local church autonomy.” For our discussion here we will consider those who believe that most or all of the power for ruling should be invested in the congregation itself.

Those who advocated congregationalism justify their position by pointing out that Christ is the head of the Church (Col. 1:18) and we are all a priesthood of believers (I Pet. 2:9). It is from these two texts that congregational polity is built. Congregationalists hold that we are all members of one body and therefore all members should have an equal say in making decisions for their local church.

Congregationalists also point to the fact that the entire church is to be involved in church discipline (e.g., I Cor. 5:5; II Thess. 3:6, 14-15); that in Acts 6:3-5 the congregation is asked to select men to serve the widows who were in need; that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer (Rom. 8:9; I Jn. 2:20, 27); that the indwelling Holy Spirit allows each believer to “test the spirits” (I Jn. 4:1); and that all believers are called upon to examine everything and hold on to that which is good (I Thess. 5:21). From these truths and others it is argued that each member of the local church is able and equipped to make decisions concerning their local church. This is usually done in congregational meetings where people vote. It is argued by some that to have an individual or group of individuals rule the church, is to usurp the rights and privileges of the priesthood of the believer.

Objections to Congregationalism

First it must be noted that most who do not subscribe to the congregational form of church government believe that Christ is the head of the Church, that true believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and that we are all a priesthood of believers. Yet do these truths mandate a certain form of Church government? Both Col. 1:18 and I Pet. 2:9 are clear, but the context is not addressing church government. You can still believe that Christ is the head of the Church, that the Holy Spirit indwells believers and that believers belong to a royal priesthood and still hold to an episcopal or presbyterian form of church government.

The New Testament is clear that God has appointed worldly rulers that Christians must submit to (Rom. 13:1-7; I Pet. 2:13, 14), and godly rulers who we are to submit to (Acts 12:17; 15:13; I Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7). In fact I Tim. 5:17 clearly asserts that those who “rule well” in the church are to be considered worthy of double honor (monetary support). It is true that each local church should govern itself, but God says that each local church should govern itself by appointing godly, gifted, trained and approved men who meet the qualifications of an elder listed in I Tim. 3 and Titus 1. The Word of God teaches that a plurality of local church elders is to govern every local church. (This will be addressed extensively in another Calvary Review.)

While all true Christians are a priesthood of believers, this does not make every Christian equally mature, equally gifted, equally trained, or equally qualified and tested to lead the church. The Bible clearly teaches that there are levels of spiritual maturity (e.g., Eph. 4:11-13; Heb. 5:11-14). God’s Word tells us that only the most godly and appropriately gifted men are to lead the local church. A man may be very godly, but not gifted or tested and hence he cannot be an elder.

One of the greatest weaknesses of congregationalism is it’s failure to recognize that the Scriptures they use to support their system relate to believers only. Believers are a royal priesthood. Believers have the indwelling Spirit of God within them. Believers have spiritual gifts. Yet, any congregation of any size contains a mixture of believers and unbelievers. Some think they are saved but are not. Even among those who are truly saved there are various gifts. In addition to these things God gives the authority to rule to men, not women. Hence if women are allowed to “vote” then women are allowed to exercise authority over men which is forbidden in Scripture (I Cor. 11:1-3; 14:34-35; I Tim. 2:11-12). This is why God gives two lists of qualifications for elders so that the Church can distinguish who is qualified and to lead and rule the local church and who is not. If the entire church is allowed to rule the Church then you have unqualified Christians, immature Christians, ungifted Christians, women, and even unbelievers making decisions for the local church. These things are forbidden in Scripture.

Even among those who are truly saved there are those who are immature in the Lord and should not be making decisions for the Church. This is why Paul says not to make a new convert an elder (I Tim. 3:6), not to lay hands on anyone too hastily (I Tim. 5:22), and to make sure those who are appointed to lead are first tested (I Tim. 3:10). Leading the church is no small matter and that is why God makes the most stringent requirements for church leaders. The central weakness of congregationalism is that unqualified people are invited to help lead the Church.

Many churches who have adopted congregational government have died a slow death. Usually it goes something like this. The church is planted and everything is going great. The preaching is good, people are being saved, the size of the congregation grows and a building is built. Since the congregation is in charge, like any democracy, people usually vote for what benefits them the most not what brings the Lord the most glory. Since there are believers of various stages of maturity, and even unbelievers, many don’t know what the Scriptures say about issues they are making decisions about. Instead they use their own human wisdom to make discussions. This causes bad, human, selfish decisions to be made rather than scriptural decisions. The beginning of the end has arrived. Ungodly people multiply and insist on maintaining power and control rather than godly, humble people. Soon, ungodliness is tolerated in the Church, the Lord removes His blessing and the Church dies.

Often if there is a conflict there are lots of phone calls, emails, rumors, hearsay, and lobbying to get people to vote in a certain way. Shamefully, the Scriptures are usually not brought up at all and people do not study the Word of God to see what God has to say. Those who do have biblical convictions often don’t get their way because the majority doesn’t know or want God ruling the church through His Word. The godly then get exasperated and leave. The church then loses much of its preserving salt. Death is close at hand. I have known many who have suffered through watching this very thing happen.

So what is a church to do? The Episcopal form of government seems too extreme in one direction, the congregation form of government seems too extreme in the other direction. This has caused some to adopt another form of church government called presbyterianism. We will look at this in our next Calvary Review.