A Short Biblical Case for Congregational Autonomy
Image
Congregationalism is the idea that Christ has established local assemblies of believers and that He is directly Head over each. The idea has both internal and external application. Externally, congregationalism means there are no layers of ecclesiastical authority outside the local church between it and Christ. Internally, it means there is no individual or board between the congregation and Christ. Leaders serve the congregation.
History has proven that layers of control outside the local church are no guarantee against corruption, either in doctrine or practice. Roman Catholicism comes to mind. That’s why we had the Reformation.
But congregational government virtually guarantees that there will be sick congregations. Corinth and Laodicea come to mind. That’s why we have the epistles.
If both congregational and non-congregational structures are subject to error and failure, does it even matter what structure churches use? If we rely solely on results arguments — as we’re so fond of doing — maybe not.
But for Bible-believers, “What works best?” isn’t really the question, is it? The right question is “What do the Scriptures instruct us to do?” The results are God’s concern, not ours.
This understanding of where results fit in is so important in our times. The general public feels increasingly entitled to demand information from, and issue orders to, private organizations. Christians seem to also feel increasingly entitled to demand information from, and issue orders to, local churches that aren’t their own. In the early centuries A.D., churches were threatened by the authority coming down from the top of society. Today, churches are threatened both by the authority coming down and the authority rising up from the grass roots (also known as “the ignorant masses”)! And it’s all fueled by a thirst for what we think are better results.
So the ideological weather out there these days requires that we regularly re-fortify our thinking with unchanging, rock-solid, revealed truth (see Eph. 4:14).
The biblical evidence
There isn’t any verse that says “local congregations are in charge of themselves under Christ.” Rather, the case is inductive: we grasp it by understanding many passages that point to a single conclusion. (The lines of evidence that follow are adapted mostly from A. H. Strong, and Roland McCune.)
1. Congregations are called to seek internal unity.
In the NT, local churches are called to strive for unity of belief and practice — to agree together about what should be done and how.
- Rom. 12:16 — “Live in harmony with one another”
- 1 Cor. 1:10 — “I appeal to you … that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but you be united in the same mind the same judgment.”
- 2 Cor. 13:11 “agree with one another”
- Eph. 4:3 — “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”
- Phil.1:27 — “standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel”
Not only do the many NT calls to pursue unity always have the same focus — the local congregation — but there is also no command to seek the approval or agreement of other congregations or anyone else outside the local fellowship. (See comments on the “Jerusalem Council” below.)
2. Congregations are called to maintain pure doctrine
Each congregation is tasked with preserving sound teaching within its own fellowship. Though 1 Timothy 3:15 may sound like a mandate for all believers everywhere (what some of the confessions of faith call the “invisible church” or “universal” church, or small-c “catholic” church), the context is Timothy’s work with a particular congregation.
I am writing these things to you so that, 15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth
The same pattern is evident in Jude 3, 1 John 4:1, and the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3. Strong, once again, observes:
In all these passages, pastoral charges are given, not by a so-called bishop to his subordinate priests, but by an apostle to the whole church and to all its members. (905)
In reference to the calls to repentance in Revelation 2 and 3, McCune explains how this works:
Corporate bodies as such cannot repent or maintain true doctrine except as the constituent individuals do so. This is done corporately through the personal soul liberty of each member, comprising the corporate conscience, so to speak, of the local church. (233)
3. Congregation are called to safeguard the ordinances.
Oversight of the ordinances is also assigned to local churches. McCune’s summary is succinct:
Paul, for example, did not commit the Lord’s Table to ecclesiastical officials or clergymen, but to the membership (1 Cor 11:2, 23–24). The ordinances are the property of the whole church. They are to be administered only by the authority of the local church, not by individuals acting in their own behalf or in behalf of any institution other than the local church. (233)
Given the importance of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in Christian living and church life, the fact that God has assigned the responsibility of administering these activities to local congregations points, once again, to His intention that local churches be independent and self-governing.
4. Congregations are called to choose their own leadership and representatives.
- Acts 6:1-6 — Deacons are chosen as “it pleased the whole gathering,” and “they” choose the seven men.
- Acts 13:1-3 — The congregation at Antioch sends Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey. The will of the congregation is identified as the will of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:4). Later, the team sent by the local church reports back to the local church (Acts 14:27).
- 1 Corinthians 16:3 — Paul plans to send a group to Jerusalem with the Corinthians’ offering, but the church is to select those who will go. He identifies them as “those whom you accredit by letter” (ESV).
- 2 Cor. 8:19, Acts 4:23, Titus 1:5 — Elders are appointed in the churches. Though apostles and their representatives are involved in the process, the wording doesn’t specify that these men acted unilaterally, and there is some evidence that the congregations themselves participated in the choosing as in Acts 6 (Strong, 906; McCune, 234, Grudem, 921).
- Acts 15 — Local congregations send messengers to join in voluntary cooperation at the Jerusalem Council (perhaps better dubbed the “Jerusalem Conversation”). McCune boils it down:
The so-called “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15:1–30) was really no more than a meeting of the members and messengers of two local churches, each sovereign in its own affairs. The church at Antioch designated Paul and Barnabas to go to the church at Jerusalem (v. 2). The Jerusalem church answered through its messengers (v. 22). (236)
Taken together, these passages reveal that the apostles — even with their unique authority (2 Cor. 10:8, 13:10) — had a profound respect for local churches’ responsibility over their own affairs.
5. Congregations are called to exercise discipline over their members.
Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 establish the principle that government authority is instituted by God “for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” (1 Pet. 2:14). However, Scripture also reveals that government’s power is not all-encompassing. When the commands of men in authority directly contradicted the commands of Christ, Peter declared that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
In God’s design, “the powers that be” are also categorically limited: “sin” and “repentance” are not their concern. Matters of individual relationship to God are not their concern.
In practical terms, this means government authority and church authority operate separately from one another in response to wrongdoing. Congregations must cooperate with the governing authorities, but must also pursue their own responsibilities in dealing with the sin and repentance of their members. Neither institution is a substitute for the other, and when sinful conduct is also illegal conduct, offenders must answer to both law and their local church. When sinful conduct is not illegal, the responsibility is assigned to the congregation alone.
- Matthew 18:17-18 — The outlined process reaches its final audience when the victim “tell[s] it to the church [ekkelsia].” Verse 18 is clear that there is no higher authority on earth: “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Any appeal to another authority would be an appeal to a lower authority!
- 1 Corinthians 5:4-13 — The congregation is to assemble, and “deliver” the offender “to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.”
- 2 Cor. 2:6, 7 — The apostle declares that the punishment “inflicted by the majority [polus]” in the congregation is “enough.”
These passage exclude two sometimes-attractive alternatives: externally, taking misconduct to some authority other than the law and congregation; internally, handling misconduct exclusively by the pastor or a team of elders. It’s the work of the congregation.
McCune observes:
Paul directs the local church at Corinth to care for its difficulties. No committee was formed and no pressure was brought to bear either by other churches, apostles, or ministerial executives. The decision of the local church on the matter was final. There is no higher court of appeal or body of jurisdiction; the local church’s judgment is final (Matt 18:15). (236)
Strong clarifies the role of the church leadership:
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. (908)
Conclusion
The NT assigns clear responsibilities to local congregations and recognizes no higher authority for carrying out those responsibilities. So, what if churches fail to act as they should? In the area of discipline in particular, what about churches that fail to pronounce guilt and exclude the unrepentant?
We know that any process God instructs us to follow works exactly as God intends it to work. “His way is perfect” (Psalm 18:30). That doesn’t mean churches have an excuse when they fail to exercise their autonomy (i.e., responsibility) properly. What it means is that God has already thought of that. He has already prepared His own solutions. At times, it may be a challenge to our faith to believe that His solutions are sufficient, but when our faith becomes sight we’ll have no doubt that He knew best all along.
References
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004. Print.
McCune, Rolland. A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity: The Doctrines of Salvation, the Church, and Last Things. Vol. 3. Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010. Print.
Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907. Print.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 377 views
Aaron, thanks for an excellent treatment of this important, though often neglected subject.
G. N. Barkman
Every one of those passages you cite is an outsider telling the church what to do. Every.Last.One.
Let’s be blunt here; I would agree that Scripture does not clearly set up an episcopacy. However, pretty much the entire New Testament is outsiders telling the church what to do. That has to factor into our ecclesiology somehow. The very setting of the New Testament does not give any aid and comfort to your notion of radical church autonomy.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert,
I would be interested in your position since so far it seems to only be disagreement with the standard one. What exactly do you believe about church polity?
[Bert Perry]It would factor into my ecclesiology in that i would obey whatever an inspired outsider tells the church to do. Wouldn’t the fact that the authors of Scripture were inspired make them different from any outsiders we would encounter today?Every one of those passages you cite is an outsider telling the church what to do. Every.Last.One.
Let’s be blunt here; I would agree that Scripture does not clearly set up an episcopacy. However, pretty much the entire New Testament is outsiders telling the church what to do. That has to factor into our ecclesiology somehow. The very setting of the New Testament does not give any aid and comfort to your notion of radical church autonomy.
Bert:
Aaron isn’t advocating a “radical autonomy.” His position reflects the standard view of congregational government you’d find in any standard Baptist systematic. Read Strong, for example. To be sure, there are good arguments against congregational government. Millard Erickson, for example, concludes the evidence for any single form of governmental structure (episcopal, presbyterian or congregational) is lacking in the NT, but he tepidly endorses congregational government.
There’s nothing controversial about congregational church government. Read Strong for a more dogmatic take, then take a look at Erickson for a more tentative analysis. I think you’d like what Erickson has to say.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Kevin Miller]Bert Perry wrote:
Every one of those passages you cite is an outsider telling the church what to do. Every.Last.One.
Let’s be blunt here; I would agree that Scripture does not clearly set up an episcopacy. However, pretty much the entire New Testament is outsiders telling the church what to do. That has to factor into our ecclesiology somehow. The very setting of the New Testament does not give any aid and comfort to your notion of radical church autonomy.
It would factor into my ecclesiology in that i would obey whatever an inspired outsider tells the church to do. Wouldn’t the fact that the authors of Scripture were inspired make them different from any outsiders we would encounter today?
The question is whether the New Testament reader/listener knew that he was dealing with someone writing ex cathedra. Given that the Bereans were of “more noble character” than others inasmuch as they tested Paul’s words with Scripture (presumably the entirety of the Tanach/ OT), I would have to presume that the ancients did exactly the same thing as we can do today. They would test the complaints against Scripture. So it’s not so different as you suggest—and really, exactly how are we to claim that our path to holiness in these matters is to do things differently from the writers of Scripture?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
the secular meaning of the word ekklesia in the 1st Century. Congregational government fits it the best. As for “outside” criticism. anybody can make an observation. The question is the outside comment binding on an individual congregation?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Kevin Miller]It would factor into my ecclesiology in that i would obey whatever an inspired outsider tells the church to do. Wouldn’t the fact that the authors of Scripture were inspired make them different from any outsiders we would encounter today?
Just to clarify two points on the phrase, “inspired outsider”:
First, Paul was not inspired. The Scriptures he wrote were.
Second, Paul was not an outsider. He planted the churches.
[josh p]Bert,
I would be interested in your position since so far it seems to only be disagreement with the standard one. What exactly do you believe about church polity?
My position is fairly simple; I do not believe that the Scriptures empower bishops in the Catholic or Anglican sense. I am open to both presbyterian and congregational structures, though with the caveat that each church has a congregational vote every Sunday; whose rear ends show up in pews. (part of why I’m open to presbyterian church government….it is kinda congregational at its root) That noted, the congregationalism and presbyterian polity with which I am comfortable also contains a strong notion of the universal church finding guidance from the most unexpected places—though tested with a Berean-like model. Given that God’s people got guidance from unelected prophets, at least one donkey, slave girls, and a group of non-apostles—Luke, Mark, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews—it’s really the only conclusion we can come to.
Put differently, we can do our proof-texting to suggest congregational polity, but the origins of that guidance—outsiders to local churches—ought to matter to us as well. We ought to have a high, positive view of it.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
When the instruction is “govern yourself,” whether the origin of the instruction is “outside” or not has no relevance.
When a judge instructs a jury to render a verdict, for example, he is telling them it is their decision to make without him.
In the case of the NT, the instructions are actually from Christ. Does His ‘insideness’ or ‘outsideness’ in any way reduce His authority to assign these responsibilities to the church?
Of course not.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Bert Perry]I’m NOT suggesting we do things differently from the writers. Aaron’s article used the words of the writers to show autonomy of the church. You admit that those proof texts “suggest congregational polity,” but since the writers were outsiders, you said the origin of the guidance “ought to matter to us as well.” Are you suggesting the church ought to operate differently from what the Scriptures SAY because the outsider status of the authors show they themselves were doing things differently from the guidance they were giving? Do you believe they were acting differently than their own guidance, or do you see some guidance in Scripture that gives church authority to outsiders other than just the example of people writing inspired Scripture. I know you’ve mentioned I Timothy 3:7, but that is just describing the church getting a report from outsiders. It’s not saying that the outsiders are having any authority over the church.So it’s not so different as you suggest—and really, exactly how are we to claim that our path to holiness in these matters is to do things differently from the writers of Scripture?
[T Howard]Yes, the Scriptures were the inspired things, but wouldn’t Paul have been “carried along” or “moved” by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21)? That is the sense I meant when I used the imprecise wording of “inspired outsider.” I totally agree with your second point. I was just using the word in the sense that Bert was for the sake of the discussion.Kevin Miller wrote:
It would factor into my ecclesiology in that i would obey whatever an inspired outsider tells the church to do. Wouldn’t the fact that the authors of Scripture were inspired make them different from any outsiders we would encounter today?
Just to clarify two points on the phrase, “inspired outsider”:
First, Paul was not inspired. The Scriptures he wrote were.
Second, Paul was not an outsider. He planted the churches.
[Kevin Miller]Yes, the Scriptures were the inspired things, but wouldn’t Paul have been “carried along” or “moved” by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21)? That is the sense I meant when I used the imprecise wording of “inspired outsider.” I totally agree with your second point. I was just using the word in the sense that Bert was for the sake of the discussion.
Yes, the inspiration of Scripture was a concursive process. Inspiration was not inherent with Paul or his other writings.
Regarding Bert’s argument, it’s not convincing to me to say that because the church recognized and followed apostolic teaching / inspired Scripture that the church allowed “outsiders” to rule the church.
Think about it. The apostolic church was a “mystery” that was birthed on Pentecost and had nothing really on which to base its polity, its ordinances, and its leadership other than the OT and a synagogue model. Many of the churches were planted by the apostles (or, at least, by the apostle Paul). To say that the apostles are “outsiders” to these apostolic era churches is a bit misguided given that Christ himself gave them direct authority over the churches. Doesn’t Scripture tells us that the apostles and the prophets were the foundation of the church, with Christ being the chief cornerstone? Thus, to refer to the apostles and their delegates as “outsiders” is a bit convoluted.
That being said, I agree that the apostles and their delegates served a unique role in the founding of the church. But, to take their unique role as a reason to reject congregational polity is again convoluted.
This might be a good time to point out that there is no violation or even compromise of autonomy if a congregation chooses to consult with other congregations about problems it’s facing, or even chooses to enlist the aid of an expert or team of experts of like faith and practice.
I have seen cases where this might have been a good option to pursue.
And, by the same token, there are ways believers outside the congregation, and other congregations as well, can seek to influence goings on in other congregations. I’m all for that, when the situation calls for it. But they have to do this in ways that recognize the congregation is in charge of itself and its members. If they really want to be effective (as in, “the test of time”), they have to do it in ways that respect the congregation’s responsibility and ability to govern itself under Christ.
The apostles modeled this, focusing on teaching and persuasion and trying to avoid a coercive approach (even though, as Paul pointed out several times, they had that option).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Biblical evidence for congregational government. We cover this in my Baptist Polity course at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. Years ago Doug McLachlan published an outline titled “The Polity Issue.” It is brief, and insightful. I’ll be glad to furnish my polity notes on the government of the local church if anyone wants them. The evidence for congregational government is clear and convincing.
The congregation disciplines its own membership.
When personal offences 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).
The congregation elects its own officers.
When the infant church in Jerusalem needed an apostle to replace Judas, the whole group of disciples met and elected Matthias (Acts 1:15-26).
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).
“True, the apostles were going to ‘appoint’ these men to their office, but what procedure was this appointment to take? ‘Look ye out among you seven men of honest report…. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they (the whole multitude) chose…’” (6:3, 5).
Congregations apparently voted to elect their own pastors (Acts 14:23).
The congregation commissioned Barnabas and Saul as missionaries (Acts 13:1-3). Barnabas and Saul reported to the church, not just the pastoral staff, when they returned from their ministry (Acts 14:27).
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).
The Acts 15 passage should make it clear 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.” (R. V. Clearwaters)
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.
Discussion