Response to the Case for Congregational Governance Continued (Part 2)

I said that I would write future blog posts about congregational rule and why I believe the case for such is not very strong. Again, I have laid out my case for Biblical eldership in multiple sermons, and if you would like to hear those sermons, you can go to our YouTube channel and there is a playlist I will link to here, and you are looking for sermons that reference the leadership of the church. I believe that the case that I laid out is how we properly are to handle the Word of Truth, but I also understand that many faithful men disagree with me. These blogs are my heartfelt response to these faithful men who have written for their case on the topic, not to say that any of them are unfaithful, but to instead teach those who come here why I hold to the view that I do in spite of the case they make.

Last blog we dealt with Acts 6, you can go there to read that if you desire using this link. This is one of the primary passages that those who hold to the congregational view will point to, and we saw there that while the congregation chose the seven, the governance there is clearly in the hands of the apostles. The congregation only did in that text what they were instructed to do, and they did it faithfully, and what is pictured there is excellent leadership of the apostles and excellent submission by the people. The apostles had an issue, they figured out the means by which the issue would be solved, they announced to the congregation how this issue would be solved, and they gave the congregation an important role in helping them solve the issue. Then, once the congregation did their part, the apostles affirmed the work of the congregation. In my mind, this is a perfect example of governance by the apostles where they are not lording it over, but exercising their authority for the benefit of all. Unfortunately, many congregational people neglect to examine the authority of the apostles and instead insist this makes the case for the congregation to have authority. I believe the only way to come to their conclusion is to be looking for a reason to give the congregation authority in this text, but there is no way to get there practicing proper exegesis of the text.

This is not the only narrative in Acts that this is done with. In Acts 15 we also see the elders and apostles gathered together for an important decision for another church. The elders and apostles all deliberate, and in the end, they announce the decision. The text then says that the decision pleased everyone, including the whole congregation. Once again, the congregational governance people interpret this as a reason for congregational governance or rule, but examining the text again makes the opposite case. The elders and apostles made the decision here, and yes, it would seem in an effort not to lord it over the congregation, they also presented it to the congregation and the congregation nodded in approval. Nowhere, however, does this text indicate that the congregation had a right to disapprove or that their approval was necessary before sending this decision to the other church. One has to read those ideas into the text, but you cannot draw them out of the text. This is the case with every descriptive passage that I have examined that the congregational governance people refer to.

Two other arguments our congregational brothers and sisters make are the Headship of Christ and the priesthood of the believer. Let’s deal with them one at a time. Of course, every true believer holds to the idea that Christ is Head of the church, and if they do not, they are apostate. In fact, I strongly dislike the terms “congregational rule” and “elder rule”, because every church must be ruled by Christ. I believe whichever government a church has, they are obligated to be completely submissive to Christ and His Word in everything. No congregation or elder group would have the rule to do anything outside of the bounds of Scripture. I am pretty confident that my brothers and sisters would agree with that.

These brothers and sisters, however, are often insistent that the Headship of Christ is ultimately most fitting with congregational rule, not elder rule. Their contention is that with Christ ruling, earthly authority is not necessary. A simple perusal of Scripture, however, would negate this claim quickly. Israel, from Exodus to their demand for a king, were under the direct rule of God, this was a theocracy. Yet, God appointed a human ruler for each time period, whether it was Moses, Joshua, the judges, or the last judge, Samuel. God was still the Head of the nation, but He used human leadership to carry out His authority. Even the kings were to look at themselves as God’s servants, despite the fact many did not. Christ being Head of His church does not mean He leaves His church with no human representatives of Him to lead the church, and that case can hardly be made from Scripture. In fact, when certain men are called “overseers” or “stewards”, it becomes clear that Christ did give such human authority in His church, not to rule, but to implement Christ’s rule.

The other argument goes like this, that since believers in Christ have equal access as priests to Christ, they therefore logically ought to have equal authority and voice within the church. In order to give this argument credibility, however, we must examine it more closely. We all should recognize that while every believer has equal access to the graces of prayer, the Word, and all the means of sanctification, not every believer takes equal advantage of such graces. The congregational system gives the same voice to the mature believer who has been walking with Christ for many years that it gives to the brand new believer who does not know anything yet of God’s Word, as well as the same voice to the believer who does not bother to study God’s Word and be filled with the knowledge of God. Yes, we are all priests to God with equal access, but that does not make all of our opinions and thoughts on God’s Word equal, nor does it grant each individual believer the same wisdom. Decisions ought to be made, not by the majority opinion of the people, but rather by the Word of God, and those with more knowledge of God and His Word would have greater insight on those decisions.

A quick look to the family, however, reveals that these last two arguments in no way require one voice, one vote. If a husband and wife are believers, they both have Christ as Head, and are both priests to God, yet that in now way negates having human leadership in the family. The husband is head of the wife, and therefore, while he ought never lord it over his wife, he is to provide the leadership and decision making for their home. Christ being Head of the family does not negate the human leadership given to the man, and the fact that both the husband and wife are priests does not require one voice, one vote, as contended in the church. If Headship of Christ and priesthood of the believer require one voice, one vote, then that would also have to be true in the family. Therefore, I find these arguments to be unpersuasive.

I want to reiterate once again, many of my faithful brothers and sisters hold to this form of congregational governance for God’s church, and I do not wish to cast any aspersions on them whatsoever. If any of them read this and feel I am treating their arguments unfairly, I would invite them to respond. I think I will have one more post on this to come, dealing with the arguments I have read regarding church discipline, the sending and receiving of missionaries, other roles entrusted to the church, and the role of elder being teacher/example only.