There are, Christian reader, certain principles in church affairs generally consented unto by all men aiming at reformation and the furtherance of the power of godliness therein, however diversified among themselves by singular persuasions, or distinguished by imposed and assumed names and titles. Some of these, though not here mentioned, are the bottom and foundation of this following collection of rules for our walking in the fellowship of the gospel; amongst which these four are the principal:—
First, That particular congregations, or assemblies of believers, gathered into one body for a participation of the ordinances of Jesus Christ, under officers of their own, are of divine institution.
Secondly, That every faithful believer is bound, by virtue of positive precepts, to join himself to some such single congregation, having the notes and marks whereby a true church may be known and discerned.
Thirdly, That every man’s own voluntary consent and submission to the ordinances of Christ, in that church whereunto he is joined, is required for his union therewith and fellowship therein.
Fourthly, That it is convenient that all believers of one place should join themselves in one congregation, unless, through their being too numerous, they are by common consent distinguished into more; which order cannot be disturbed without danger, strife, emulation, and breach of love.
These principles, evident in the word, clear in themselves, and owned in the main by all pretending to regular church reformation, not liable to any colourable exception from the Scripture or pure antiquity, were supposed and taken for granted at the collection of these ensuing rules.
The apostolical direction and precept in such cases is, that “whereunto we have attained, we should walk according to the same rule;” unto whose performance the promise annexed is, that “if any one be otherwise minded, God will also reveal that unto him.”
John Owen, on congregations and congregationalism, Eshcol; A Cluster of the Fruit of Canaan
The majority of references in the English Bible to the Lord's congregation used the word "church". In addition to this, there are at least 7 figures of speech given to help us further understand its meaning and function.
The Lord's congregation is:
1. A church, a lawful assembly (ekklesia) Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 12:28
2. A body, a living organism (soma) Romans 12:5; Colossians 1:18
3. A flock, a group of followers (poimnion) Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2
4. A house, a kindred family (oikos) 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 3:6
5. A building, a designed structure (oikodome) 1 Corinthians 3:9; Ephesians 2:21
6. A temple, a devoted place (naos) 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21
7. A bride/wife/married woman, a covenanted relationship (numphe/gune) Ephesians 5:23-24
8. A husbandry, a cultivated field (georgion) 1 Corinthians 3:9
According to Wikipedia, "The idea that each distinct congregation fully constitutes the visible Body can, however, be traced to John Wyclif and the Lollard movement which followed after Wyclif was removed from teaching authority in the Roman Catholic Church." The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The earliest literary exponent of Independence was Robert Brown, from whom the dissenters were nicknamed Brownists."
In contrast to these statements, in his books A View of Congregationalism and History of Congregationalism George Punchard compiles biblical and historical evidence of the practice of congregational church government, long before John Wyclif or Robert Browne.
About George Punchard:
PUNCHARD, George, editor, born in Salem, Massachusetts. 7 June, 1806; died in Boston, Massachusetts, 2 April, 1880; graduated at Dartmouth in 1826, and at Andover Theological Seminary in 1829. From 1830 till 1844 he was pastor of a Congregational church in Plymouth, New Hampshire; associate editor and proprietor of the "Boston Traveler," of which he was also a founder, from 1845 till 1857, and again from 1867 till 1871. He was secretary of the New England branch of the American tract society, and the author of a "View of Congregationalism " (Andover, 1850), and a " History of Congregationalism from A. D. 250 to 1616 " (1841 : 2d ed., 3 vols., New York, 1865-'7).
"Mark Dever has said that congregationalism is reality. The reality is, regardless of what type of church polity they are part of, people are going to vote with pocketbooks (support or lack thereof), and eventually their feet (attendance or lack thereof)."
In his article Congregational Government is from Satan, James MacDonald asserts that congregational voting is not biblical. Certainly he is correct if we are looking in the New Testament for the traditional motion & second, all in favor and the majority rules; Robert's Rules of Order and all that. But does congregational participation have to look like that? Can it take some other form and that form be found in the Bible? If so, then this strike against congregationalism falls. Does "voting" (congregational decision-making) exist in some other form? Consider the following examples and whether there is "a shred of biblical evidence".
Acts chapter 1. The Lord has ascended to heaven. The church is waiting in an upper room. Peter, a leader and an apostle, posits replacing the suicidal Judas with one who has been with them from the baptism of John. "They" -- the men and brethren to whom he was speaking, the 120 disciples, appointed two to set before God, and "they" (the same group) gave forth their lots. The lot was cast into the lap, and the disposing of it was by God.
Acts chapter 6. A problem had arisen concerning fair distribution to the Grecian widows. The apostles called the multitude (church/congregation) together. They were exhorted to select seven men to appoint over this distribution to see that it was done equably. The "whole multitude" was pleased and they came to an agreement together, choosing seven men to set before the apostles.
Acts chapter 10. Peter was sent of God to preach at the house of Cornelius, a Gentile. He had to be convinced through a vision to go. As he preached the Holy Spirit fell on the hearers, demonstrating God's approval. Though an apostle with authority to baptize, Peter still sought the consensus of those he brought with him, asking, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized..."
Acts chapter 13. The church at Antioch is unified in sending Paul and Barnabas to wherever God called them. They receive the message of the Holy Spirit and act upon it together. They send them forth with spiritual, moral and (sometimes) material support.
Acts chapter 15. First we find a church in Antioch disturbed by a doctrinal deviation. Yet by consensus they send Paul, Barnabas and others to Jerusalem, and even provided for their journey ("brought them on their way"). The church at Jerusalem came together to consider what certain brethren who went out from them (v. 24) were teaching in other places regarding salvation and circumcision. Paul and Barnabas were present from Antioch and testified of Lord's work among the Gentiles. Peter recounted his calling to preach to the Gentiles at Cornelius's house. James offered his counsel. Together "with the whole church" a solution was reached and a statement made.
I Corinthians chapter 5. A wicked act of fornication is reported in the church, and Paul exhorts them to put away this wicked person from their congregation, to be done by consensus "when ye are gathered together." (Cf. Matt. 18:17; II Cor. 2:6-8)
Congregational consensus is found in these places, a process of coming together in agreement by effective communication. Consensus decision-making fits well with the New Testament concepts of unity and one-anothering, regenerate church membership, servant leadership, individual accountability, the church as a body of gifted members, as well as the use of the word "ekklesia," a called-out assembly. The workings of New Testament congregations confirm the example of "congregational government" (i.e. congregational involvement in decision making). This must be understood within its context. Christ in the head of the church, and the church is governed by Him mediated through His word, which is inspired, profitable, and sufficient for faith and practice. The elders are the preachers and teachers of the word, and the church should judge "whether those things are so (Cf. I Cor. 14:23,27-31; Gal. 1:3-10)." In modern practice, congregationalism is sometimes extreme and at odds with the biblical revelation. But extremism should be corrected to the center of God's word, without going to some other extreme.
Within the purview of the congregation we find them involved in exercising discipline (I Cor. 5:3-5), selecting officers (Acts 1:23; 6:5), providing doctrinal and practical clarification (Acts 15:22-29), sending messengers (cf. Acts 11:22; 15:2,22), affirming the call of God (cf. Acts 13:1-3) and receiving Christian itinerants, ministers and members (II John 10; Acts 9:26; Rom. 16:1-2; Gal. 6:1). Sometimes congregations use their idea of "congregationalism" to step outside their purview (or to just revel in the flesh), such as usurping the role of the Spirit in sending His ministers. The churches did not tell Paul and others where to preach. They acknowledged and affirmed the call of God and left them to be guided by the Spirit. They did not tell the apostles and elders what to preach. They preached the Word, the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:2027-28; II Tim. 4:2). They did not tell them how to preach -- they are to teach doctrine, reprove, rebuke, exhort. A congregation has no right to step into the sphere of what the Spirit and Word directs (though they are to use discernment of what is being preached).
There is no need to defend modern practice. Let us abide by New Testament example. Congregationalism that ignores godly leadership, biblical exhortation, wise counsel, and the office of the eldership is only a distant cousin to what is found in the inspired revelation. Church government that consigns congregational consensus to the devil is no cousin at all. A church government model that puts its authority in the "staff" (many of which are not biblical offices) is a model of practicality and expediency rather than orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Some verses are claimed to be at odds with what the New Testament congregations practiced, and so nullify the practice. That is bad interpretation. James and others may think that it is impossible to reconcile congregational decision making with scriptures like Hebrews 13:17 ("Obey them that have the rule over you"). Au contraire. The scriptures reconcile them whether we can figure it out or not. They never needed reconciling! The "at odds" is in our interpretation, not the Bible. The scriptures indicate that those thus commanded also participated in the decision-making process. Go thou, and do likewise.
Jesus prays for unity, John 17:11,20-23 - And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are...Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
An apostle exhorts to unity, I Corinthians 1:10 - Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
The Lord's supper expresses unity, I Cor. 10:17 - For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Seven ONES and unity, Eph. 4:3-6 - Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Spiritual gifts tend toward unity, Eph. 4:11-13 - And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Submission and unity, Eph. 5:21 - Submitting yourselves one to another one to another in the fear of God.
"We are not our own" -- and are not alone -- but part of a community of believers whose minds and hearts should be on one another. Consensus decision-making seems to fit best with the New Testament concepts of unity and one-anothering (as opposed to other forms of decision-making/governance that have been set forward for the church).
Some considerations and implications from the New Testament examples
Matthew 18:15-18 - Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In the matter of consensus concerning fellowship, the matter (if unresolved at the person to person level) is taken to the church/ekklesia/assembly.
Acts 1:15,21-26 - And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said , (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) ...Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
In this account of unified decision making in the church, the they are some 120 men and women uniting together concerning the matter of Matthias.
Acts 6:1-5 - And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Again in this case it is the they, the whole multitude of disciples/the whole church, that chose the seven.
Acts 13:1-3 - Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
The church at Antioch is unified in sending Paul and Barnabas. They receive the message of the Holy Spirit and act upon it.
Acts 15:1-3 - And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Though disagreeing over circumcision, the Antioch church apparently reached a consensus agreement to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem concerning the problem.
Acts 15:22-23 - Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
The "apostles and elders, with the whole church" at Jerusalem came to a united decision on the circumcision question before them and send Paul, Barnabas and others with a letter of clarification.
I Corinthians 5 & 6 - The whole church were to unitedly carry out the fellowship and discipline of the church, and in weighty matters, even the "least esteemed" are competent to judge.
I Cor. 14:23,27-31 - If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, ...If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
When the whole church came together at Corinth, among other things, they were to judge that which was prophesied.
II Thess. 3:6-15 - Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
The church must act in unison to carry out these commands of the apostle.
Although the whole church was not represented, Peter asked consensus of the disciples who traveled with him to Cornelius' household (Acts 10:47) concerning the baptism of these Gentiles. This shows deference to and interest in the opinion/spiritual discernment of others, and was not very pope-like.
These New Testament examples seem to have a common thread running through them. Even in cases of a direct command from the Lord through an apostle, the church had to act in a unified manner to carry it out. It is not a complicated matter that requires years of the study of parlimentary procedure in order to know how to conduct business, but the simplicity of finding out what the Lord wants and acting in concert.
The unified decision-making carried out by the church does not imply no leadership in the church. The entire church body is led both by the Holy Spirit and the elders whom the Spirit has placed among them. Ultimately the "decision-making" is judicial -- judging or understanding what the Lord says do and then doing it -- but "the whole church" is involved.
Probably most modern Baptists know the rule of a democratic majority, though some experience the top-down rule of pastoral dictatorship, elder rule or staff decision-making. Historically, the Baptist decision making process has also included consensus, the unanimous rule in matters of fellowship, and even the casting of lots. H. C. Vedder wrote that "The Baptists of the seventeenth century had many curious customs...Fasting was a common observance, feet-washing was practised by many churches, though its obligation was earnestly questioned, and the anointing of the sick was so common as to be almost the rule. Pastors and deacons were often elected by the casting of lots, and love feasts before the Lord's Supper were a common practice. (A Short History of the Baptists, Henry Vedder, Chap. 15)
In the church in which I was raised, the 10th article of decorum passed down from the old Mt. Carmel Church required a "majority present shall rule in all cases except in maters (sic) touching fellowship, when the voice of the church shall be unanimous." This meant that some matters were settled by majority vote, but that receiving and excluding members, etc. had to done with unanimity. This rule reigned in the church until 1934, when a majority bent on excluding a member voted that the unanimous rule "be done away with".*
The historic Sandy Creek Association of North Carolina took the consensus principle beyond the local congregation to their associational meetings. According to David Benedict, "It had been usual with them to do nothing in Associations, but by unanimity. If in any measure proposed, there was a single dissentient, they labored first by arguments to come to unanimous agreement; when arguments failed, they resorted to frequent prayer, in which all joined. When both these failed, they sometimes appointed the next day for fasting and prayer, and to strive to bring all to be of one mind."
These are just some brief historical points to cause you to consider that Baptists probably have not always done it the way you may think they have -- hopefully to begin to knock a little of the wind out of the old "we've always done it that way" argument. Next we will look at the more important New Testament considerations.
* Note: an attempt to rescind the "anti-unanimous rule" vote was mounted in 1937 with no success. Though one might assume the church would be able exclude many more members without a "unanimous rule", this actually had the opposite effect. Perhaps this exclusion by a majority adversely affected the moral authority of the church and resulted in a loss of respect for church discipline.
I'll hope to spend the next couple of blogs considering Biblical arguments for consensus or unified decision making in the church. Perhaps we have settled for less than the ideal.
When I speak of the church as a decision making body, I speak in a context of Christ as the Head of the church. So, no statement on decision making is to be taken as meaning a church can make decisions apart from what her head has already legislated. Each local congregation has authority under Christ to make decisions according to their understanding of the commands of Christ. A church has no right to make an unscriptural decision. BUT no individual, religious body or political body has any right or authority to interfere with and meddle between a church and Christ in said church making her decisions.
It is important to recognize the church as a "decision-making" body, though that is certainly not its only function. There is often found in churches and among church members an apathy and indifference with regard to church-governance functions, resulting in a lack of participation on the part of many church members. Brethren, these things ought not to be.
The church as a decision making body:
A. As seen in the word ekklesia
Ekklesia is the Greek word usually translated "church" in our English Bibles. That Jesus chose this word ekklesia rather than "sunagogue", or some other more "religious" word ought to be given proper consideration. Ekklesia was an assembly of (male) citizens duly summoned or "called out" to transact business. It was an open meeting with due deliberation in which these citizens interacted to come to a decision. Ekklesia never refers to a building or place of worship. We could no doubt get too extreme in trying to make parallels between a New Testament church and a Greek ekklesia, but it is way too extreme to think Jesus used this term carelessly and/or without awareness of its implications to His hearers/readers.
"The term ἐκκλησία was in common usage for several hundred years before the Christian era and was used to refer to an assembly of persons constituted by well- defined membership. In general Greek usage it was normally a socio-political entity based upon citizenship in a city-state and in this sense is parallel to δῆμος." [Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains, New York: United Bible Societies, 1996]
"A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly" [Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament]
B. As seen in New Testament examples
Acts chapter 1 is an account of unified decision making in the church. Casting lots is not the same as voting as we think of it today, but the church was united in this process. In Acts 6 the whole church chose the seven (Acts 6:5); and in Acts 15 "the apostles and elders, with the whole church" at Jerusalem came to a united decision on the circumcision question before them. Related verses include the church at Antioch's unified sending Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1ff) following the choice of the Holy Spirt; this same church reached a consensus agreement to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem concerning the circumcision problem (Acts 15:1-4); the whole church at Corinth was to judge that which was prophesied (I Cor. 14:23ff). Another incident, although the whole church was not represented, shows Peter asking consensus of the disciples who traveled with him to Cornelius' household (Acts 10:47; not very pope-like, I might add).
Consider also Matthew 18:15-18; I Cor. chapters 5 and 6; II Thess. 3:6-15; and Gal. 6:1. We will develop these examples to a greater extent in a later blog.
