Response to the Case for Congregational Governance Continued (Part 3)

This is my third and final blog post (for now) on why I do not find the arguments for congregational governance for the church persuasive. The previous two can be found on our blog page here if you would like to read them, but so far we have dealt with some of the narrative passages they refer to, as well as their arguments that the Headship of Christ and priesthood of believer are more consistent with congregational versus elder governance. Let me reiterate, many faithful people I love and know, who love God’s Word, disagree with me on these issues, and what I am trying to do is not to pick on them, but rather trying to support the position I hold. I will continue to love them even if they do not find my arguments persuasive, but I also would challenge them to consider what I say, and even challenge me back if I am not dealing with their arguments fairly. My desire is simply to follow God’s Word as closely as I possibly can, and if I am failing in an area, I want correction.

Besides the arguments dealt with in the previous two posts, I have also read where congregational supporters have said that the ideas of church discipline, the sending and receiving of missionaries, and other roles entrusted to the church indicate congregational leadership. I am in full agreement that we see these as the duties of the church, but how these ideas are fleshed out in human terms is not as clear as they assume they are. What I mean is, if you approach these ideas with congregational governance in mind, then that is all you can see, you have already put on the lens of congregational governance, so for example, the church enacting discipline is the congregation voting together. This action, however, is not a position you can exegete from any of the texts dealing with these issues, rather, all we can say is that this is what the church did, they disciplined members and they sent and received missionaries among other activities. The “how” of doing these things, however, is not mentioned in Scripture. There is no mention of a vote of the congregation, that is the assumption being made by the congregational supporters.

It is just as likely, and I would argue more likely and consistent with other Scripture, to say the process was not one voice, one vote. I do believe, as all should, that the church has a role in disciplining members, in sending missionaries, in hearing from missionaries, and many other activities together, but this does not require a church vote of all the members by any means. In fact, there are probably numerous methods by which these actions could take place that we could think of that would be described as the church doing it. Could not a group of elders represent the church and speak for the church on these matters, and the church simply be in agreement in submission to the elders? Could not the elders lead in these matters, and simply seek congregational input to affirm or contradict the direction they are leading? These texts, I believe, make clear that there is to be, as much as possible, “all-church” involvement in these matters, but they by no means state that it has to be one voice, one vote congregational governance. There are other ways to involve the whole church in decision making processes other than a church vote.

Another argument that is used is to point to a couple of texts of Scripture that talk about godly leadership. Jesus tells His disciples, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all” (Mark 10:42-44, Legacy Standard Bible). Peter told the elders in Asia, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you…shepherd the flock of God among you…nor yet as lording it over those allotted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1-3). The argument is that since the instruction is to not lord it over, that elders have no decision-making power or authority at all, rather they are only to be examples, servants, and that is all. Their belief is that these texts negate any authority to make any decisions by elders or human leadership in the church.

There is a huge problem with this, however. If the apostles would have no authority or power to wield and abuse, then why would Jesus give them this instruction? The very fact that Jesus warned them of this was because they were going to be entrusted with authority, and they were not to abuse that authority, and we see that clearly in the book of Acts played out where they had authority over the church. If the elders had no power or authority in the charge allotted to them as overseers, a term denoting authority, then why would they need to be warned not to lord it over and to focus on being examples? Again, this only makes sense if Peter knew they had authority that they might be tempted to abuse. Do we honestly believe Peter warned these elders not to abuse an authority that they did not even possess? That seems incredulous on its face. Clearly, both the apostles and elders had authority, and they had the potential to use that authority for sinful purposes, and so the warning is given to them. 

These texts in no way negate human leadership or governance in the church, in fact, they reinforce the fact that there is human leadership and governance in the church. Instead, these texts are teaching those human leaders how to act, how to lead, how to exercise the charge given to them. It would seem that as I have read thearguments for congregational governance in the church, many have no picture of elders who would lead and make decisions as servants and examples. Every article I read made the case that it was either the congregation in control or men would lord it over the church as leaders, one or the other. As Christians, however, and if we are careful with the qualifications in recognizing elders, we should understand that these men are examples, are servants, and they are leaders, and they have authority, authority that has the potential to be abused if they act sinfully. One can have a lot of authority and utilize it to serve the church and to set an example for the church. 

For absolute proof of this, we need to look no further than directly at our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said that He did not come to be served but to serve, as He gave His life as a ransom for many. His servant status, however, did not negate His status as having all authority, rather He demonstrated how we ought to use our authority, for the benefit of His people and for the glory of God. In this way, Jesus is the perfect example for all people, and especially for elders/pastors/overseers. In fact, Jesus set the example for the whole church in living a righteous life, but being an example for us, again, did not negate His full authority over us. Jesus is the greatest example of how to exercise authority for human leadership, to serve the church by setting an example of godly behavior as well as using that authority to help the church glorify God and for the benefit of all. Being servants and examples in the church cannot mean negating authority in the church or else it would mean Christ has no authority any longer since He is both a Servant and example to us. He showed us how to lead with excellence. 

Let me make clear, it is unbiblical to have a plurality of elders who do not consider what Jesus desires in His church and who do not consider the congregation in their decision-making. Having elders serve and be examples does not negate their authority, but rather they are to use that authority as servants of the church, for the good and benefit of the church and our Lord Jesus Christ. This, I believe, is the Biblical model of church polity. I believe that since the church is purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ, that she must be governed how Christ calls her to be governed, and I believe the prescriptive and descriptive passages of Scripture only fit a godly, Biblically qualified plurality of elders/pastors/overseers who are servants of the church and set examples to the flock. If we desire to be blessed by God as a church, we ought to seek to conform the church to the Word in all things. This is why I will continue to lead Norton Baptist Church to a new church polity that lines up with God’s Word, for God’s glory.