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.

Discussion

[JG] If a Chinese student in the US is given a Bible, and he takes it home to China and reads it, and gets saved, and tells his family and friends, and they get saved, and they decide, “You know, we need to have a church, and there’s none we know about within 50 miles.”

So they all look at the qualifications, and unanimously agree, “Brother Lee is qualified, he will be our elder.” Would that congregational action be Biblical or not? If not, what should they do?
No. God says “not a new convert” 1 Tim. 3:6.

Ted, I think I can clarify. I might have read you incorrectly, but your position seems to be that you have to have elders to get elders. Where do the ordaining elders come from? In the case of a congregation that currently has no leaders, the answer seems to be that they must get them from somewhere else. However, this is antithetical to the acknowledged basis of independent church government, that the local congregation has within it all the powers necessary for its functioning as the body of Christ, powers including ordination.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

I have to agree with Charlie on this, Ted…it does seem like this is a chicken and egg scenario here insofar as that you are arguing that no one can be an elder if they aren’t appointed by elders.

Furthermore, I disagree with you that Brother Lee shouldn’t be an elder if he’s the only one in his church that has any qualification. Yes, elders should not be made quickly (I Tim. 5:22) - but if the whole church has said (in this example) that he meets the criteria in I Tim. 3, then I don’t see why he should be barred on the basis of v. 6. Is it ideal? No, of course not. But I don’t think that it’s wrong to appoint someone to be an elder on the basis of JG’s post. It’s not like I Tim. 3:6 has “six months” in place of “recent”.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Ted Bigelow]
[JG] If a Chinese student in the US is given a Bible, and he takes it home to China and reads it, and gets saved, and tells his family and friends, and they get saved, and they decide, “You know, we need to have a church, and there’s none we know about within 50 miles.”

So they all look at the qualifications, and unanimously agree, “Brother Lee is qualified, he will be our elder.” Would that congregational action be Biblical or not? If not, what should they do?
No. God says “not a new convert” 1 Tim. 3:6.
Oh, didn’t you know? They’ve been meeting for several years since they got saved. They know that “not a novice” is a requirement.

Please address the question. It’s not hard. Option 1: Scriptures absolutely mandate that elders be appointed by other elders, and thus a fully qualified Brother Lee cannot Biblically be an elder until other elders hit the scene somehow or other. Option 2: Brother Lee can be an elder because elders are not required to make elders.

[Charlie] Ted, I think I can clarify. I might have read you incorrectly, but your position seems to be that you have to have elders to get elders. Where do the ordaining elders come from? In the case of a congregation that currently has no leaders, the answer seems to be that they must get them from somewhere else. However, this is antithetical to the acknowledged basis of independent church government, that the local congregation has within it all the powers necessary for its functioning as the body of Christ, powers including ordination.
While I agree with local church autonomy, it shouldn’t be the isolationist thing you want to make it. Only a proud man would never ask for help; same with a church. In my book I deal with this extensively - the appointing of elders, and merging of churches with no or few elders. I don’t think that the local church has all the powers necessary for its functioning as the body of Christ. Look at Corinth. They had no elders and really, no one wanted to go shepherd them - not Timothy, not Apollos - and Paul had to lead them by letters (which I’m glad for).

BTW, I love the idea of connectionalism. Not church courts, but connectionalism. Problem is, its contrary to Scripture ;) . BTW, isn’t this the the big week (or was it last week) - the G.A?

[JG]
[Ted Bigelow]
[JG] If a Chinese student in the US is given a Bible, and he takes it home to China and reads it, and gets saved, and tells his family and friends, and they get saved, and they decide, “You know, we need to have a church, and there’s none we know about within 50 miles.”

So they all look at the qualifications, and unanimously agree, “Brother Lee is qualified, he will be our elder.” Would that congregational action be Biblical or not? If not, what should they do?
No. God says “not a new convert” 1 Tim. 3:6.
Oh, didn’t you know? They’ve been meeting for several years since they got saved. They know that “not a novice” is a requirement.

Please address the question. It’s not hard. Option 1: Scriptures absolutely mandate that elders be appointed by other elders, and thus a fully qualified Brother Lee cannot Biblically be an elder until other elders hit the scene somehow or other. Option 2: Brother Lee can be an elder because elders are not required to make elders.
I like option 2 in cases where no elders are not available to help with the testing. We look for godly character over perfect polity. Its a scarce commodity.

[Jay C.] I have to agree with Charlie on this, Ted…it does seem like this is a chicken and egg scenario here insofar as that you are arguing that no one can be an elder if they aren’t appointed by elders.
Where did i ever argue that?
Furthermore, I disagree with you that Brother Lee shouldn’t be an elder if he’s the only one in his church that has any qualification. Yes, elders should not be made quickly (I Tim. 5:22) - but if the whole church has said (in this example) that he meets the criteria in I Tim. 3, then I don’t see why he should be barred on the basis of v. 6. Is it ideal? No, of course not. But I don’t think that it’s wrong to appoint someone to be an elder on the basis of JG’s post. It’s not like I Tim. 3:6 has “six months” in place of “recent”.
JC, Titus could only men who met all the qualifications (Titus 1:5-9). Where do you get the authority to recommend appointing men who don’t?

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.

[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.

[Ted Bigelow] I like option 2 in cases where no elders are not available to help with the testing. We look for godly character over perfect polity. Its a scarce commodity.
Good. Let me see if I can describe your view in my own words.

The Scriptures do not require an elder to make an elder (or Brother Lee couldn’t be Biblically accepted as an elder), but it is a wise course that is best followed where possible. A congregation can in such a case “choose” an elder consist with Scriptural qualifications without any elder guidance if necessary. Whenever possible, elder guidance from inside or outside the church should be sought.

Is that an accurate reflection of your view? If so, I’m in agreement.

I put “choose” in quotes because I believe any “choice” of an elder, whether elder-guided or not, is really only an acknowledgement of the evident choosing of God. I’m guessing you would agree with that, as well.

[Ted] Elders are chosen by the body under the application of Scripture. IOW, the legitimacy and full-charge authority of an elder is defined in Scripture and both elders and congregation are to submit to what Scripture calls elders to be and what to do.

When Titus was on Crete, he appointed elders by what criteria by qualification, not vote.
About Titus. He was acting under direct apostolic orders to set up leadership in churches that had not yet done so. I think there is nothing there that argues for or against congregational government.

But the first part of your statement reveals an underlying congregational government structure.

If the congregation has the authority, under Scripture, to choose elders according to biblical standards, then it is also responsible to remove elders that no longer meet those standards. It has the authority to hold them accountable at least to some extent. This creates a flow of authority like this:

Scripture—>Congregation—>Elders

Admittedly, though, you also have Heb. 13.17 commanding churches to obey those who have the rule over them and not give them grief.

So there is clearly also a biblical mandate to accord elders with the authority to exercise leadership.

So in some matters you have:

Scripture—>Elders—>Congregation

The “congregational gov’t” understanding of that leadership—in most places I’ve read—is that the elders have authority to direct obedience to Scripture but they are not empowered above the level of the congregation in matters that are not revealed. At least I think that would be a fair way to summarize it.

So an elder has the authority to tell me—as a church member—“Stop committing adultery,” but does not have the authority to tell the congregation “We’re going to sell this building and build another down the road.”

(Though the congregation could choose to delegate these kinds of decisions to the elders. This would still be “congregational” government, kind of like America is still a “democracy,” though it is ruled by law enacted by representatives).

Of course, there are all sorts of gradations in between those two scenarios (“Stop committing adultery” vs. “Sell this building”) and the boundaries get murky, but the examples help illustrate a bit.

Ted, in your view, when the congregation “chooses” elders, does it vote?

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.

[Ted]
Furthermore, I disagree with you that Brother Lee shouldn’t be an elder if he’s the only one in his church that has any qualification. Yes, elders should not be made quickly (I Tim. 5:22) - but if the whole church has said (in this example) that he meets the criteria in I Tim. 3, then I don’t see why he should be barred on the basis of v. 6. Is it ideal? No, of course not. But I don’t think that it’s wrong to appoint someone to be an elder on the basis of JG’s post. It’s not like I Tim. 3:6 has “six months” in place of “recent”.
JC, Titus could only men who met all the qualifications (Titus 1:5-9). Where do you get the authority to recommend appointing men who don’t?
Ted-

Where do you get the authority to tell a church that they can’t appoint their own leaders if the proposed leader meets all the criteria with the exception of “not a new convert”? And how did you discern the length of time that Paul wrote about when he said “not a novice”? That’s the point that Shaynus and I are making.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Aaron Blumer]
[Ted] Elders are chosen by the body under the application of Scripture. IOW, the legitimacy and full-charge authority of an elder is defined in Scripture and both elders and congregation are to submit to what Scripture calls elders to be and what to do.

When Titus was on Crete, he appointed elders by what criteria by qualification, not vote.
About Titus. He was acting under direct apostolic orders to set up leadership in churches that had not yet done so. I think there is nothing there that argues for or against congregational government.

But the first part of your statement reveals an underlying congregational government structure.

If the congregation has the authority, under Scripture, to choose elders according to biblical standards, then it is also responsible to remove elders that no longer meet those standards. It has the authority to hold them accountable at least to some extent. This creates a flow of authority like this:

Scripture—>Congregation—>Elders

Admittedly, though, you also have Heb. 13.17 commanding churches to obey those who have the rule over them and not give them grief.

So there is clearly also a biblical mandate to accord elders with the authority to exercise leadership.

So in some matters you have:

Scripture—>Elders—>Congregation

The “congregational gov’t” understanding of that leadership—in most places I’ve read—is that the elders have authority to direct obedience to Scripture but they are not empowered above the level of the congregation in matters that are not revealed. At least I think that would be a fair way to summarize it.

So an elder has the authority to tell me—as a church member—“Stop committing adultery,” but does not have the authority to tell the congregation “We’re going to sell this building and build another down the road.”

(Though the congregation could choose to delegate these kinds of decisions to the elders. This would still be “congregational” government, kind of like America is still a “democracy,” though it is ruled by law enacted by representatives).

Of course, there are all sorts of gradations in between those two scenarios (“Stop committing adultery” vs. “Sell this building”) and the boundaries get murky, but the examples help illustrate a bit.

Ted, in your view, when the congregation “chooses” elders, does it vote?
Hi,

I do think the elders have the authority to govern without congregational approval or veto. I also think for elders to make large expenditures without a lot of congregational input is really dumb!, but that’s sort of beside your point. 2 Major factors play into “full-charge eldership. First, as you mention, the congregation is always told in Scripture to submit to the leaders, and never granted veto power from God. Two, the leaders of the NT church are called to govern - they are “hegoumenoi” in Heb. 13:17 - governmental rulers - shepherds, overseers - and one term that I like to bring out in Titus 1:7 - “stewards of God” - and therefore accountable to Him, not to the congregation. IOW, they aren’t the “representatives of the people (think Presbyterianism, Christian Reformed Church, etc.), or the “town-selectman” you might have seen in churches.

James MacDonald ‘s blog mentions that congregationalism, since the reformation, is a reaction to this “vulnerability under non-accountable leaders.” Of course back then it was more of the threat of being under unregenerate priests (Catholicism) and bishops and prelates (Anglicanism) or a town council (in part - think Geneva). If that’s true, Congregationalism is a view of church governance that’s reactionary and protective.

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.

[Jay C.] Where do you get the authority to tell a church that they can’t appoint their own leaders if the proposed leader meets all the criteria with the exception of “not a new convert”? And how did you discern the length of time that Paul wrote about when he said “not a novice”? That’s the point that Shaynus and I are making.
Thanks. I view the church as under Scriptural authority, not as an alternative source of authority. Therefore I would look at 1 Tim. 3:6 as a “non-negotiable” qualification for each and every elder in each and every church that has elders. I see this as true of every qualification (there are 26 different qualifications in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, by my count). The authority for this (if I’m correctly reading your’s and Shaynus’ query) is found in 1 Timothy 3:2, “he must be….” (dei oun… einai) which leads to a series of non-negotiable qualifications, beginning with “above reproach” (v. 2) and ending with “having a good reputation with outsiders” (v. 7).

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. ;)

[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?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells