Congregational Government: A Response to James McDonald
On June 9, 2011, James MacDonald posted a blog article under the title “Congregational Government is from Satan.”1 SharperIron provided a link to the article, thus I am replying through SharperIron.
MacDonald begins his message by saying:
NOTE: the tone of this post is intentionally aimed at engaging those who are engulfed in this system of church government that neither honors the Scriptures nor advances the gospel.
That’s right! It’s actually the title to a book I have had percolating in my mind for a long time. After almost 30 years in ministry I have come irreversibly to this conclusion: congregational government is an invention and tool of the enemy of our souls to destroy the church of Jesus Christ. So there, I have said the strongest part of the message first; now some commentary.
In his commentary MacDonald lists five arguments against congregational church government. They are:
1. Congregational meetings are forums for division. He says:
When church life is going well, the leaders of a church struggle to get a quorum for decision making. When things are going wrong, every carnal member lines up at a microphone to spew their venom and destroy the work of Christ in the church.
2. Voting is not biblical. MacDonald explains:
There is not a shred of biblical evidence for a congregation voting on what its direction should be, but many church members believe it is their “God-given right” to stand in judgment over the Pastors and Elders that are seeking to lead them.
3. Eldership is sometimes unpopular. The author elaborates:
Elders are responsible to “shepherd the flock” (1 Peter 5:2), which is often a very dirty job. Calling out sin, dealing with those who have fallen and seeking their restoration (Galatians 6:1-4), these responsibilities put Elders in positions where doing the right often means doing the unpopular. To then force the Elders to submit to a referendum on their actions is crushing to good men and destroys the work of God in a church.
4. Congregationalism crushes pastors. Brother MacDonald continues:
I could retire now if I had banked a hundred dollars for every time a Pastor wept to me on the phone or in person about the crushing weight of a local ‘church boss’ who would not listen to Scripture or reason or God’s Holy Spirit.
5. Priesthood, not eldership, of all believers. MacDonald makes this point by saying:
A significant plank in the platform of biblical protestantism has been the priesthood of all believers. This is the idea that all of us as followers of Christ have equal standing before God and do not need a clerical intermediary in our relationship with the Lord. Sadly, though, this has led in many congregations to the Eldership of all believers—where each person, regardless of training, giftedness, fruitfulness, experience, etc., considers their thoughts about the future of a given congregation to be of equivalent value.
Response
So far I have attempted to give a fair representation of Pastor MacDonald’s position in his own words. I seek to complete this article with brief personal responses to this popular pastor and teacher and then offer some biblical evidence for the biblical principle of congregational church government.
MacDonald’s first argument would be valid if divisions never occurred in churches that do not practice congregational government. That is demonstrably not the case. The Bible teaches harmony in a local church occurs when church members practice humility and selflessness (Phil. 2:1-4), “put up with” (ἀνεχόμενοι) one another in love (Eph 4:2),2 and seek to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). Divisions are not the result of a congregational form of church government (which, as we shall see, rests on a biblical foundation), but they arise out of the carnality of the human heart.
As to MacDonald’s second argument (that voting is simply not biblical) we shall shortly demonstrate that Scripture gives evidence of some form of congregational decision making and determination.
MacDonald’s third point has some validity, but I fear he overstates his case. Shepherding is hard, and often thankless, work. Several responses run through my mind, but one will suffice for now. It is true that in church discipline spiritual leaders are to confront those who sin (Gal. 6:1). But according to Scripture the ultimate responsibility for exclusion from the fellowship is always a congregational action. In the case of personal sins between brothers (Matt. 18:17), of gross public sin (1 Cor. 5:4), and of a sinning pastor (1 Tim. 5:20), the biblical evidence always points to public, corporate exclusion or rebuke. No doubt the pastoral leadership will have to take the lead in these difficult cases and will have to expose itself to criticism. But when the ultimate step of exclusion occurs, they should be free from such attack because that action is to be corporate.
Fourth, MacDonald argues that “congregationalism crushes pastors.” I doubt he would argue that no pastor has ever been “crushed” in an elder-ruled system of church government. I know of situations where godly shepherds were “shown the door” by a board of elders.
Fifth, our brother seems to misrepresent the concept of the priesthood of all believers. He says: “Sadly, though, this has led in many congregations to the Eldership of all believers—where each person, regardless of training, giftedness, fruitfulness, experience, etc., considers their thoughts about the future of a given congregation to be of equivalent value.” If that is the case, then pastors have miserably failed to teach believers the biblical truth of the priesthood of the believer. I will not outline the biblical teaching in this brief response, but that statement misrepresents the biblical evidence.
Scripture does give clear evidence that congregations were active in the government of their churches. This is only a synopsis of that material.
1. The congregation disciplines its own membership. When personal offenses (literally, sins) occur and brethren cannot resolve them, the local church, not the elders or pastors, is to resolve the issue (Mt. 18:15-17). When public sins plague the church, the church, when it comes together, is to discipline the sinning member (1 Cor. 5:1-5). When a pastor sins, he is to be rebuked before all (1 Tim. 5:20).
2. The congregation elects its own officers. When the church in Jerusalem needed men to assist the apostles with the material needs of the widows, the whole multitude of believers elected them (Acts 6:1-7). The apostles “called the multitude of the disciples” (Acts 6:2) and instructed them to choose men for the task. Luke records that “the saying pleased the whole multitude” (Acts 6:5). Once elected, the apostles detailed their work, and the seven were accountable to the twelve for how it was accomplished (Acts 6:3). But the choosing of the seven was a congregational act. We were not there, and we do not know the mechanics by which the action was taken, but an argument against congregational choice in this case will not stand up to the evidence.
3. Congregations apparently voted to elect their own pastors (Acts 14:23). The word for “ordain” in this verse points to corporate participation in the choice of elders. Lest you think this is a Baptist “spin” on the verse and the use of the word, please consult the Lutheran R. C. H. Lenski in his commentary on Acts or the Anglican Henry Alford in his Greek New Testament commentary.
4. The congregation commissioned Barnabas and Saul as missionaries (Acts 13:1-3). Barnabas and Saul reported to the church, not just the staff of prophets and teachers, when they returned from their ministry (Acts 14:27).
5. The church at Antioch, not the leaders, sent men to Jerusalem to resolve a doctrinal dispute (Acts 15:1-3). The whole church at Jerusalem responded with its advice (Acts 15:22, 23). “It is clear that the whole church, whether of Antioch or Jerusalem, was involved in this entire process. It was not the sole responsibility of a hierarchy, but the whole body was addressing these issues. It was ‘the whole church’ and ‘the brethren’ who endorsed the message and elected the messengers (vv. 22-23). And it was to ‘the brethren’ (i.e., the whole church), not just ‘the elders’ that this doctrinal communicating was addressed (vs. 23).”3
6. The Acts 15 passage reveals that no organizational ties existed between the local churches. They enjoyed a spiritual kinship and fellowship. They voluntarily looked to each other for advice in a time of need. But no authority outside the local churches governed them. No church dominated another. “The local church always acted in absolute SELF-DETERMINATION of its relations with other local churches—Acts 15:1-30.”4
7. The churches chose the messengers who took the offering to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:19, 23). The churches gave the offering, and the churches chose their messengers to convey that offering to Jerusalem.
Many other issues need to be addressed on this subject, and this forum is not the place to do that. I hope to address the issue more comprehensively in a work on Baptist Polity.
Notes
1 http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/?p=7552 Accessed June 11, 2011. All quotations of MacDonald are from this article.
2 See Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon, in Bible Works 8.
3 Douglas R. MacLachlan, “The Polity Issue” (Unpublished paper, Northland Baptist Bible College n.d.), 2.
4 Richard V. Clearwaters, The Local Church of the New Testament (Minneapolis: Central C. B. Press, n.d.), 37.
Fred Moritz Bio
Fred Moritz serves on the missions faculty at Maranatha Baptist University. He earned his MDiv at Central Seminary (Plymouth, MN) and DMin at Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC). He became assistant to Dr. Monroe Parker at Baptist World Mission in 1981 then Executive Director in 1985, where he oversaw 350 missionaries. He is also the author of Be Ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation and Contending for the Faith.
- 68 views
[Ted Bigelow]So Ted, are you going to put a hard and fast number of months/years a Christian must be converted so that he is not a novice? In Acts, the church grew up pretty fast. THANK GOD, HE can raise up elders quickly if experienced (10 + years) Christians aren’t available.[Shaynus] I’m glad Paul wrote “not a novice” and not “a Christian for at least 10 years.” The qualification is going to mean different things in different circumstances. Thank God.Thank God? A novice appointed into leadership will likely “become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil” - in any circumstance, in any culture. Who gains the advantage - the church, or the devil? Its a horrible experience that hinders the gospel and puts Christ’s sheep in danger.
[Jay C.]Jay, I don’t think I can explain this to your satisfaction, but in the case you describe, the church would be like Corinth in the NT. No internal leadership. However, it should not appoint the 6 month old Christian as an elder or else they will likely pay the price of violating 1 Tim. 3:6. Or, God could gloriously bless that church. He is like that, isn’t He?[Ted Bigelow] As to the precise amount of time, I would say men who are already qualified elders will know by experience what makes a man no longer a novice. It takes one to know one. ;)But then you’re back to the problem with the illustration…what happens when the church, who is a new church, decides that person X meets all the qualifications outlined in Scripture even though he is only a believer for six months? You seem to say, well, the ruling elders make that determination - but what if it’s only one elder/pastor, and he has no objection?
[Shaynus] So Ted, are you going to put a hard and fast number of months/years a Christian must be converted so that he is not a novice? In Acts, the church grew up pretty fast. THANK GOD, HE can raise up elders quickly if experienced (10 + years) Christians aren’t available.I imagine He can! However, we should do all we can to live by Scripture to the glory of God (Mat. 4:4). We can praise Him for exceptions but they don’t provide the model we are obligated to obey. Personally, I think that the men who became elders at churches like Pisidian Antioch were already regenerate Jewish man who had been maturing for years before they knew of the gospel. They already had been “believers” for years, experiencing the sanctification of the indwelling Spirit! They were indeed qualified, including the matter of being new converts - not to the Christian faith, but to the things of God. Otherwise we have Paul violating Christ’s commanded qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:6.
[Shaynus] Again, are you willing to put a hard and fast number on how many months/years someone must be a Christian before they are “not a novice?This gets at what I wrote to Jay in post 29 (check that out).
Since elder-qualified men oversee the testing and appointing of elders, and not the congregation, they are in the right position by maturity and scriptural call to evaluate whether or not a man is too young to be in eldership. The only people in a church who have the maturity Paul requires in an elder are the presently qualified elders. The other saints in church can only guess at what it is like to be elder-qualified, and are not in a position by maturity where it is wise for them to appoint.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Ted Bigelow] In elder churches, elders are not elected - they are tested and appointed by recognition of godliness, giftedness, and conformity (to 1 Tim 3, Titus 1). Votes have some negative issues I’ve addressed in the middle chapters of my book.How is this not a vote? You already stated that a single dissenting voice in the congregation can bring the will of the elders to a halt. How is this not congregational voting?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] How is this not a vote? You already stated that a single dissenting voice in the congregation can bring the will of the elders to a halt. How is this not congregational voting?I don’t think I said that, Chip! That goes directly against Scripture!
Allow me to use an example in the matter of elders testing that involves the congregation in our church – perhaps this will explain what I was referring to when you read something I wrote about the “individual voice” – later I’ll apply it to ongoing church life.
During the testing process a prospective elder’s name is made public and the congregation is asked to compare/evaluate/judge him against each of the 26 qualifications. Each member has authority and obligation in this testing process to bring any concern about a prospective elder not meeting even a single qualification to the existing elders (or to the prospective elder). To facilitate this everyone gets a document in the bulletin explaining the 26 qualifications - about a paragraph per qualification - let me know if you want it – I would be happy to email it to you. When anyone has a concern about any prospective elder, then it is looked into. If it has merit, then the man is clearly not elder qualified and is removed from consideration, and we will work with that man on that area of maturity. Thus one member prevents an unqualified man from entering a position of significant responsibility. A single person in the church can thereby stop the elder from becoming an elder.
In eldership each individual member really uses Scripture properly - applies it to real life and has real authority. It patterns how each of us is to apply Scripture to life: “read and obey.” Every member is empowered to protect the church, and in essence, controls who can, and who cannot be an elder. Thus in eldership the individual has vastly more power than in congregationalism. In congregationalism the individual only votes “no” on the man, but due to winning a majority of votes he goes into leadership anyway. Thus unqualified men are routinely put in leadership and the future health of the church and its faithfulness to the gospel will likely be severely tested.
As well, in congregationalism the individual Christian is ill-taught. He/she is taught that when it comes to church life we make decisions on leadership the way the world does, i.e., votes, majority wins, etc. There is no application of Scripture taught because the entire process of voting is outside of Scripture, and further teaches by implication that Scripture does not teach us how to appoint elders. It’s irresponsible and unfaithful, for we as pastors tell the Christian to read the Bible and obey. But when it comes time to church life and decision making, we don’t obey Scripture. Imagine making decisions in the home the way congregationalism teaches. Scripture shows that a man who is spiritually proven in the home is likely worthy of leadership in the church (1 Tim. 3:4-5). A man who leads his home by voting is ill-qualified to lead in the church!, but a man who can handle full-charge authority in the home with godly results may be able to handle full-charge authority in the church, too.
OK. Enough preaching. Now to talk about the immense authority of the individual in eldership. If you are in a church that follows The Titus Mandate (Titus 1:5), each individual is in the position of authority to change the church. He wields the very document that grants the elders their authority. The authority of the individual Christian is also the authority of the elders, since elders can only get into eldership by precisely meeting Scripture’s qualifications. Each believer possesses what they must obey, because in true eldership, an elder must respond to the Word of God at every point and at all times. If he doesn’t, he loses his role as an elder, for he is a defector from the very document that put him in eldership in the first place. It is here, in the church, that each believer’s priestly authority is extraordinarily powerful. Should he/she expose even one area in the church where Scripture is not being explicitly obeyed then the church must be changed by those in leadership. If they procrastinate or give excuses then their position as God’s stewards (Titus 1:7) comes to an end, for they are now disqualified. They are under obligation to “hold fast to the faithful word,” that is, the Bible (Titus 1:9). If they refuse to hold it fast they are unworthy of their office. When leaders refuse (for whatever reason) to quickly reform the church by Scripture they are to be removed in the manner that 1 Timothy 5:19–22 stipulates. They are sinning not only against the individual believer, but against the church, and against Jesus Christ.
No other church structure grants so much authority to the individual Christian, nor can it. Eldership is built on the priesthood of the believer. That’s why no other church structure even comes close to the priestly power that eldership recognizes as belonging to every member of the congregation by virtue of their new birth in Christ. This extreme level of authority is inherently precious to each believer, for every Christian knows that God’s Word was written for him, and that God’s Word is meant to rule the church. Eldership is designed to insure that one trembling Christian with one verse is more powerful than a thousand church leaders, theologians, and church councils. In eldership each believer wields the sole authority over the church: Scripture. Only in eldership, then, is the priesthood of the believer recognized, loved, and honored.
On a personal level, once you understand your priestly authority in the church, you are realistically encouraged to obey and honor Scripture in every area of your life. This creates godly links between you and Scripture, church, and life. You learn that the Bible says is to be obeyed in all areas, and when it is obeyed in all areas, life is spiritually safe. Because of eldership you are taught to read the Bible with the sole aim of obeying its every precept. This is patterned for you when your church does it first and shows you exactly what obedience looks like. When your church obeys Scripture’s teaching on how its leaders are appointed the correct connection between Scripture and life is patterned for you every week in your church. Eldership honors your priesthood because it shows you what church looks like
when the Bible is read literally and applied faithfully.
Discussion