A Plea for the Congregational Voice in Church Polity
One of the hallmarks of Baptistic theology has been an abiding conviction that the members of an autonomous local church should govern their affairs. This conviction was forged out of both a theological conviction and a set of negative experiences coming out of the Reformation. Congregational rule, or Congregationalism, has not been without its difficulties, as many can tell, but the same can be said about every other form of church polity. Unfortunately, many in today’s leadership movement are abandoning congregational rule and trading it for a new kind of leadership structure which is poised for a new generation of abuse of power. “Elder rule” church polity is awkwardly close to a kind of Catholic/Anglican priestly role of authoritarian leadership, giving concentrated power to only a few and unintentionally diminishing the high view of the gathered people of God who are “priests” in the Kingdom of God.
Historically, congregationalism affirms the following principles as normative:
There is an unmediated authority under Christ as the head of the church with his people gathered under his lordship. This is typically referred to as the priesthood of the believer.
There is a high view of the authority of scripture which becomes the final authority in all matters (as opposed to a person or an office having final authority). The Reformers called this “sola scriptura” (scripture alone).
There is a high standard to which members must pursue holy living with an emphasis on mutual accountability. Church discipline is the outgrowth of this value when someone abandons Christ-honoring behaviors.
There is a strong conviction about the autonomy of the local church to govern its affairs. This conviction often resulted in an intentional openness to associate and covenant with other local like-minded churches to accomplish ministry efforts in unity. Autonomous but interdependent describes this conviction.
In the most general sense of authority, there are 3 basic forms of biblical governing authority: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. All three are present in the narrative of God’s people gathered together. A monarchy has concentrated power and authority in one person. An aristocracy has representative power and authority in a few. Democracy has power and authority diffused among the people. Biblically speaking, all three forms of governing authority function under the authority of God and answer to him. The New Testament Church is a wonderful weaving together of all three forms in perfect harmony led by God’s Spirit.
In this article, I intend to argue both theologically and practically for congregational rule with a representative authority by way of the elders who shepherd the church through spiritual oversight and fully implement that oversight through the staff. All of this functions under the authority of King Jesus and his Word contained in the canonical scriptures. It is my hope that churches that have historically affirmed congregational rule would reestablish this conviction and safeguard for the next generation. I suggest the following phrase help guide the local church to define the three various leadership roles of any and every church: “Congregational rule, elder overseen and staff led.”
Theological Convictions
There are multiple key points theologically leading to congregational rule in governance. Churches must learn to establish a set of practices rooted in theological conviction. The church has historically affirmed this approach with the phrase: “orthodoxy drives orthopraxy.” That is, theological conviction clearly rooted in the scriptures informs, guides and directs the way the people of God function and live out their faith in practice. While there are disagreements amongst theologians about the kind of polity taught in the scriptures, the historic Baptistic model for congregational polity is founded on several key theological tenets, which have widespread, common agreement. In short, soteriology and ecclesiology together drive church polity.
I want to argue four main points theologically guiding toward an understanding that “Congregational Rule, Elder Overseen and Staff Led” congregationalism is the most comprehensive, biblical model for church polity.
The Priesthood of the Believer: The priesthood of the believer is a bedrock theological conviction informing all the others. The people of God are redeemed by the Spirit of God and Jesus alone is the only mediator between God and man. The gathered people of God are being assembled into a living temple with Jesus alone as the Cornerstone, making him the head of the church (1 Peter 2:5). This biblical foundation defines a simple, “flat” organizational model that points to the original model of OT national identity before the kingly era of rule (1 Samuel 8:7). This principle was a hallmark of the Reformation as the Catholic priesthood (and Papacy) had become corrupt and power-hungry. Simply put, the priesthood of the believer defines the gathered people of God as the priests of God following the leadership of King Jesus in worship. This theological framework represents the monarchy of God through King Jesus and the democracy of his people gathered for worship.
Only born-again people form the local church: A local church membership is made up of only regenerated people, which is an extension of the previous point but is not the same as the first point. Baptism seems to be the door all members pass through as a confirmation of true, regenerated faith. We cannot underestimate the significance of this truth, given the two other primary forms of church governance: Catholic/Anglican and/or Presbytery. Each of these assumes that a local church membership contains both redeemed people and unregenerate people, and infant baptism is the door through which membership is conferred. When the local church has only regenerate people, unity can be established as the Spirit of God leads and prompts a congregation toward action and direction. With a regenerate membership, there is a mutuality of agreement to hold one another accountable “toward love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24). Church discipline makes no sense unless this model is embraced since the goal of biblical discipline is to maintain a membership, which is living out genuine faith pursuing a life of holiness. The very nature of the ecclesia is that God is gathering his people together to worship him alone. While non-believers may attend the local church, membership must be reserved for those who confess Christ as Savior and repent of their sins. Baptism, then, is the process by which someone confesses their faith publicly and the church confirms genuine Christ-honoring faith as illustrated or demonstrated in local church membership.
Leadership comes from within the church: The elders rise up from within the local congregation and serve that congregation, not wielding authority but in humble service (1 Peter 5). The congregation submits to their leadership and authority (Hebrews 13) as an expression of submission to Jesus. Some may suggest that the apostles had authority over churches, thereby allowing people from outside of the local church to have authority in a church they don’t attend. The apostolic transition into the New Testament era, however, is a transition from the Old Testament temple's centralized worship to the decentralized local church scattered abroad. A more normative model is in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 where men are being “reviewed” ultimately by the leaders and the congregation to see if they are ready for leadership in the elder and/or deacon role (1 Tim. 3:10). In no case do we see people from outside the local church having rule over the congregation they do not attend. Even in the Acts 15 Council, we see the voice of the elders and the congregation confirming the direction of the apostles (apostles AND elders gather in Acts 15:6; apostles, elders AND the whole church confirmed the decisions in Acts 15:22; and the congregation rejoices at this direction further confirming unity and God’s leadership in Acts 15:30–31). God’s Word is the ultimate authority in all matters and not a position or a person. This helps keep it clear that Christ is the head of the church. Elders, therefore, serve as overseers of the local church and derive their shepherding authority from the congregation and God’s Word. Congregationalists believe that the membership should have a voice in affirming or selecting its leaders. As the congregation affirms and appoints its elders who will guard and guide the church, so the same principle is true for the Pastoral staff (pastors and deacons) who are an extension of the elder team tasked with leadership and implementation of a vision/mission. In it all, the leadership of a local church becomes a representative form of authority (aristocracy) derived by those who affirm their submission to those placed in authority. Every church is self-governed under the leadership of King Jesus and the authority of God’s Word.
The Congregation has the final say: The congregation has a role in key moments of decision-making in the early church. It is the congregation that seems to be the bedrock of the ultimate, final say. When the church is rooted in God’s Word, Christ is the head leading his people. In the following points, notice the congregation is the final level at which certain decisions occur.
In Discipline: The members of the local church seem to have final authority in implementing church discipline and excommunication (Matt. 18:17 and 2 Cor. 2:8). Note that sinning elders are held up to the congregation as the final authority and accountability (1 Tim. 5:20).
In Leadership Decisions: The members of the local church seem to have a confirming role with the Acts 15 Council. The apostles, the elders AND the congregation all confirm the gospel central decision of the Jerusalem Council and the final evidence of this is the rejoicing of the congregation when the news is communicated (Acts 15:30-31).
In Missional Outreach Decisions: The members of the local church sent out, heard back from and received the reports from the missionary journeys, giving a key role in sending and receiving (Acts 13:1). The Antioch Church is the great sending church of the Pauline missionary journeys, and it is this church which Paul and Barnabas return to when they give report and evidence of the gospel impacting the Gentiles (Acts 13:3, 14:27).
In Ministry: The members of the local church seem to have all the spiritual gifts, and there is no significant distinction between laity and professional clergy (1 Cor. 12:14, 19-20). Each member has a role in the function of the assembled body. The very nature of the church as a body seems to confer no special status on any given position or gifting (1 Cor. 12:4-7). The basic job description for a pastor is to equip the people of God to do the work of God (Eph. 4:12).
In Submission to God’s Word: “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) was the clarion call for a local church’s final authority in all matters during the Reformation. No person, position or institution would replace the final “voice” of God’s Word (2 Tim 3:16-17). The Bible is final in all matters and sufficient for a Christian to follow and obey God. This is the reason a local church can be autonomous because it must be submissive to the Word of God and answer to God for its obedience. Christ is the head of the church and the Scriptures will “wash the church” to make her ready (Ephesians 5:25-27).
Summary: Given these four theological reasons, there is ample biblical evidence to embrace the high value of congregational rule with elders overseeing and guiding the church body. The staff pastors become an extension of the elder team, implementing the vision and mission of the church under their direction. The phrase “congregational rule, elder overseen and staff led” wonderfully summarizes this mentality and gives clarity on how the three relate to one another.
There are multiple practical reasons both currently and historically to embrace congregationalism.
Congregational rule helps prevent an abuse of power: “Congregational rule, elder overseen and staff led” begins to formulate a model that can grow with the church at all practical levels, meaning the organizational structure does not need to change but rather what each layer does may change as a church grows. Congregationalism was forged in the fire of clergy abuse of power and corruption leaving a kind of inherent distrust of outside powers (i.e. Reformation). The practical value of congregationalism creates many benefits. During the Reformation, the church was recovered out of the dysfunction of the Catholic Church, but the systems of power and authoritarianism remained in place. Before the Reformation, there was no real congregational voice in the church, and dysfunction flourished. When decision-making authority drifts away from the congregation, who submit to the authority of God’s Word, and that same authority is given to only a few people, there is a greater possibility of abuse of power and theological dysfunction. When the gathered people of God confer together and there is mutual accountability, there is less likelihood of unchecked power. Unfortunately, American media often puts on display clergy who abuse their position and authority. The phrase “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is also true in church. Create a high expectation for the membership to have high ownership and keep ultimate decision-making authority decentralized.
Autonomous Congregational rule helps keep the lines of authority between the state and the church separate and clear: One element of historical church dysfunction was the alliance between the church and the governing state. The Baptistic movement coming together out of the Reformation sought to find ways to separate the church from the state authority. The escape to America was forced by the hands of persecution from the established church too connected to the political state authorities. Thus, in America, the great experiment was the division of church and state as a never-before-tried approach to society and faith. The Puritans quickly recognized the benefits of a church that had authority over its own affairs and was not to be interfered with by the political authority. Congregationalism flourished with a redeemed church membership governing itself under the authority of scripture. Under God’s economy, the government was given tools to govern society, and the church was given its own set of tools to govern its internal “society.” Both are affirmed by God and put in place by God. Both function under the authority of God’s law and in submission to God’s law. Often, congregationalism flourished by voluntary associations with like-minded churches in the region so they could encourage one another and partner together in mission work. This voluntary association allowed local churches to demonstrate the universal church in motion. Today’s church needs to be careful not to over-affiliate with any particular political party lest the purposes of each (church and government) be confused.
Congregational rule helps prevent disempowered membership: Is it possible that, in our effort to be more efficient in leadership decision-making, we have disempowered the congregation from high levels of ownership? One of the ongoing difficulties in many churches is the inability to engage people to participate and invest selflessly in the ministry of the church to reach a lost and dying world. With American consumerism invading many churches, the local pastor has become a kind of “hired hand” to do the work of the ministry rather than equipping the members to “do the work of the ministry.” When a congregation is increasingly disconnected from the ministries of the church being run by the professional staff, there is a kind of slow dissolution of congregational engagement and investment. Congregationalism, however, seeks to keep the membership informed and engaged in all church matters (like buildings, debt, budgets, key ministry initiatives, the hiring or firing of pastors, etc.) and can grow through its representative leadership (elders overseeing the church and guiding the staff) no matter the church size.
Congregational rule helps put accountability and stop-gap measures on authority, which frequently corrupt when left unbridled: In a growing number of churches that have elevated the elders to a “monarch-like” authority, there is a significant unaccountable concentration of power in only a few people. It is not healthy or safe when just a few people can decide that the Senior Pastor needs to resign or be fired and the congregation not be engaged or empowered. A congregation should be engaged in the hiring and firing of a senior pastor as the chief vision caster and staff leader. To be clear, there are times when a senior pastor (or other staff) needs to be terminated for a variety of reasons. Congregational rule insists these situations are handled openly and in the light of day. There are complexities when a pastor is fired no matter the approach, but for the health and empowerment of the gathered body of Christ, the voice of the membership must be engaged.
Congregational rule helps make sure that financial decisions are “owned” by the decision makers: It is a dangerous and slippery slope when too few people determine the financial commitments of the people who must financially support the direction of the church. The congregation is far better off when it “owns” the financial direction of the ministry of its church. In some elder-rule churches, only a few people make decisions regarding significant debt and financial direction impacting the entire congregation for years to come. This feels eerily similar to a Catholic/Anglican polity where the congregation simply has to live with and underwrite the decisions of those who are leading. This can quickly become dysfunctional and destructive.
Congregational rule can help prevent theological drift and error: Often, when just a few people gather around and determine theological decisions, error and groupthink can creep in, steering the church away from historic orthodoxy. The congregation MUST have the final say and protect the local church moving forward as it follows its spiritual leadership. If doctrinal statements are altered or denominational affiliations are entered into, the congregational voice must be engaged and empowered to help assess the orthodoxy of those statements (Galatians 6:1–4).
In Summation
“Congregational rule, elder overseen and staff led” is a model of church polity that is both faithful to the sweeping biblical narrative and practically wise at many levels. While congregational rule may have its own set of difficulties, all church polity can be adrift when sinful people rule. Congregational rule with elders overseeing the spiritual health of the church and giving direction to the staff who lead the actual ministries of the church will build a model under the authority of God’s Kingly rule.
Resources Utilized
Baptist Foundations: Church Government for an Anti-Institutional Age edited by Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman. This is an excellent resource as a compilation of authors. I especially enjoyed Part 1, which contained 2 chapters (Chapter 1: “Some Historical Roots of Congregationalism” and Chapter 2: “The Biblical and Theological Case for Congregationalism”). This book is thorough, easy to read and an excellent resource to have handy.
Congregationalism by Henry Matryn Dexter. Written in 1865, this book was amazingly thorough, albeit much more difficult to read. If anyone wants to understand some of the original ideas leading to Congregationalism, this is very detailed and well-documented. The opening chapter was worth the book to me.
Visible Saints: the Congregational Way by Geoffrey F. Nuttall. This too is a historical resource I had to search out through inter-library loan and is not easily found. Written in 1957, it contains the historical development of congregationalism after the Reformation. There is great evidence that the seeds of Congregationalism were already well planted before, during and well after the Reformation.
The Art and Practice of the Congregational Way by Dr Elizabeth Mauro (from the Center for Congregational Leadership). This small and simple PDF brochure is an excellent summary of Congregationalism, affirming its major tenets and giving a basic description for each.