Keep sharing good news without ads.
Congregational Polity
I trust that you have your Bible open to Titus chapter 1. We want to read this first chapter of this epistle, Paul writing to Titus, a young man. He's a young minister, Titus, a young minister of Jesus Christ, to whom Paul gave instruction to strengthen the churches on the island of Crete.
And really by sending Titus, Paul was extending his own apostolic ministry to probably principally Gentile churches, churches that needed his ministry, but churches to which Paul himself could not visit.
And so Titus chapter 1, Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect and the acknowledgement of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, but has in due time manifested his word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior, to Titus, a true son in our common faith.
Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. For this reason I left you in Crete that you should set in order the things that are lacking and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.
If a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not for the sake of dishonest gain.
One of them, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but even their mind and conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but in works they deny him being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.
The Apostle Paul, of course, was the apostle to the Gentiles, and by his own confession he was responsible for all the churches. Consider that a heavy task when you consider he was one man who couldn't be everywhere at all times.
He needed to entrust others to represent him in his apostolic work. There were churches on the island of Crete of which Paul was responsible, but apparently he was unable to visit or at least unable to stay in person.
And so he sent, or rather left, Titus, a young man of the faith, to further establish and strengthen these churches. And one aspect of Titus's work of ministry was to set in order the polity, or the church government, of the churches on the island of Crete.
And with this church government in place, the churches, therefore, would be possible for them to become healthy, functioning churches. And they'd also be able to withstand the forces of evil and evil men who would pervert faith and practice among them.
And so Paul told Titus to set in order the things that are lacking, appoint elders in every city as I commanded you. We see here the churches were led by elders. Now the structuring of the churches by Titus may seem to conflict with what we have been advocating in the last few weeks regarding the New Testament teaching that local churches of Jesus Christ are to be chiefly congregational in church government.
Titus was left in Crete to appoint, some would argue, ordain elders in every city. That would be every church, we would argue. And so some would say that this is in conflict with the principle or the idea of congregational church government.
We would argue, of course, that this is not the case. We would advocate the New Testament teaches congregational church government, but also at the same time teaches that congregations should be led by a plurality of elders.
And so today we want to continue our discussion of congregational polity as taught or illustrated in the New Testament, but we also want to begin to introduce the role and the function of elders within that congregational polity, which is not always an easy thing to sort.
Through.
And so we will address this today. We showed last week that great authority has been given by our Lord upon His churches. This is reflected in a number of ways in the New Testament. Such great authority that we as Christians should have a high regard and respect for every biblical church of Jesus Christ.
God highly regards each church. We should too. Our Lord has granted His churches a great and responsible role in this fallen world. As we affirmed last week and we have asserted many times in the past, the local church is the only institution that our Lord Himself began, established, and commissioned to announce and expand His kingdom in the world.
This is not to deny the reality and usefulness of parachurch organizations, but let us recognize the local church is the chief means that God has appointed to carry out His work of the kingdom in this world.
It's the only institution that we have set forth in the New Testament. And we believe that the historic Baptistic view of congregational church government is taught and prescribed in the New Testament scriptures.
This congregational understanding of church government, we would advocate, has had the highest view of the dignity and authority of the local church than any other form of church government. The churches are denominations espoused and practiced through church history.
Baptist understanding is that God's word sets forth a high regard for the congregation of the saints, the true believers in Jesus Christ. The Lord has entrusted the local church with the capability and responsibility to govern itself and to fulfill the mission that He has entrusted to her.
And that is a high view of the church, because we believe that the local church should be comprised of regenerate people only, those who have new life in Christ, and therefore they have the desire and the delight in seeking out the will of God.
And so you bring a collection of true Christians into one church body, and they will collectively, should collectively, seek the mind of the Lord. And so we have a high regard for the local church, not like some others who do not trust a congregation to be able to rule itself, but rather they want to impose authority from persons, individuals, outside the church, who dictate to the local church their policies and the manner in which they should govern themselves.
We advocate the New Testament does not present church government in that way, but rather each and every local church has the authority, has the responsibility, and therefore the ability as the Lord Jesus gives them to govern themselves.
And so I want us to rehearse some of these great responsibilities in more detail. Some of these things were in our notes last week, but we did not have time to complete all of our notes, and so I reworked them.
And so it is not exactly verbatim as to what we put forth last week, but we want to set forth these principles, these matters, and expand on some of them. First of all, recognize that the Lord has given the local church the authority to receive, discipline, and exclude its members.
This is not authority granted to the pastor, or to the elders, or to the deacons, but rather to the church body as a whole. This underscores congregational church government. We saw last week that in Matthew 18, the Lord Jesus told his disciples that the final court of appeal in matters of discipline with an unrepentant member was the church.
If they do not hear those two or three witnesses, Jesus said, tell it to the church. And so he said of their dealings with the unrepentant men, if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church, but if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and an attack collector, in other words, as an unbeliever.
Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. In other words, the Lord in heaven acknowledges, recognizes, and affirms the decision of the local church that is working and serving in his name.
We also see this practice, by the way, set forth in the Apostle Paul's instruction to.
The church at Corinth.
When disciplining a church member who was sinning egregiously, and this guy was sinning in such a way that even non-Christians didn't act like this, and Paul rebuked them for their toleration putting up with it.
And so he wrote to the church at Corinth, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, he wasn't talking about the elders being gathered together, the deacons, or presbytery, or a synod, but when you as a local church are gathered together, he says, with the power of the Lord Jesus, there is the authority that the Lord Jesus gives the local church.
Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. The church has that kind of authority. The church was to deal with this sinning man by excommunicating him from church membership.
Under the Old Testament economy in ancient Israel, transgressors of the covenant were.
Cut off.
In other words, they were executed, their lives were taken, and they were no longer part of the covenant community. But thankfully, under the new covenant, I say thankfully, but it's actually maybe even a more horrendous judgment, if you consider it accurately and rightly.
Under the new covenant, the church is not required to execute capital punishment upon a rebellious member of the community, rather the church is simply to put him out formally from membership in the body.
And that takes care of the matter. For without the special protection of that church, which has been afforded that church member, he will then suffer the consequences of his sin. And Paul says that this will possibly bring him to repentance, and thereby he would experience true salvation.
He could not continue in this sin and hope to be saved. And so hopefully by this action of the church, putting him out of the membership of the church, he'll come to encounter the consequences of his sin.
He actually comes into the realm of Satan, and Satan has turned loose on him, hopefully bringing him to repentance. And if then he does repent, he would be restored to fellowship of the body. And apparently the church at Corinth took this action upon this man, and apparently this man did come to repentance as a result of the church excommunicating him from its membership.
We can glean this from 2 Corinthians. Paul prescribed the action in 1 Corinthians 5. We don't know from that passage if the church took that action, but it is suggested in 2 Corinthians. However, once the man had repented, the church had failed to receive the man back into their membership upon his repentance.
They were first faulted for tolerating the egregious sin this man was committing while a member, but they were later condemned for not forgiving this man and receiving him back into their fellowship after he had repented of his sin.
And so in Paul's discussion of this matter in 2 Corinthians, we learn further of the nature of congregational church government in excluding and restoring this man. And so Paul wrote to this church, again the gathered church.
He wasn't writing to the elders, wasn't writing to the pastor, the deacons. He was writing to the congregation. This punishment which was inflicted, notice, by the majority. Hey, it was the congregation that took this action against this man.
It's sufficient for such a man so that on contrary you, and this is not singular you, but rather second person plural, you as a church body, ought rather to forgive and comfort him lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow.
Therefore I urge you, again he's talking to the church, to reaffirm your love to him for to this end I also wrote that I might put you to the test whether you are obedient in all things. Now whom you forgive anything I also forgive.
Again this is the action of the local church at Corinth that was to forgive and restore this man. Paul was writing to the church collectively as a congregation. The church had acted to dismiss this sinning member by the majority.
And the church was also collectively to forgive him and restore him to their fellowship. This conveys the idea of formal action and declaration, does it not? That's congregational church policy. This action is consistent only with congregational church government.
The church as a whole agrees to take action to exclude, and the church as a whole agrees to embrace this one back into church membership. Similarly, Paul had instructed the church at Thessalonica collectively that they were to shun those among them who were walking in a disorderly manner.
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. Now, disorderly could be a rather broad category, but specifically in this context, he was probably talking about people who refused to work to earn a living, and rather they were freeloading off of the members of the church.
Some of them thought the second coming of Christ was imminent, and therefore they actually quit their work and they were just idle. And Paul rebuked them and said, if a man will not, or if he refuses to work, let him starve.
And he was saying that if a man persists in this disorderly behavior, that the congregation was actually to remove themselves from him, to not extend fellowship to him. But again, what is suggested by Paul to this church at Thessalonica would involve collective agreement, an announcement and action on the part of the church body.
Again, this reflects congregational church government and action. And then we have the instruction of the Lord Jesus himself that he gave to the seven individual churches in Asia Minor as recorded in Revelation 2 and 3.
Here is a strong argument for congregational church government. One described the seven letters to seven local churches in this way, the Lord and the epistles to the seven churches of Asia, clearly holds each church as a whole responsible for its doctrine and practice or discipline.
But had these churches been organized episcopally, in other words according to an episcopal form of church government, or Presbyterially, in other words according to Presbyterian form of church government, the rebukes for unsound doctrine and life would have been directed to the session, or the presbytery, or the bench of bishops, and not as they are to the congregation.
But it is evident that the right of discipline, exclusion, restoration, thus clearly governed to the whole assembly of the church, involves also the right of admission. For no church could rightly be held responsible for its own character and acts if it did not control the door of entrance.
And he is absolutely right. It was the congregation's responsibility to keep its doctrine pure and its practice legitimate and holy. And so there we see congregational church authority demonstrated and illustrated, and we would argue only congregational polity could be understood as fitting these functions of the church that we've set forth.
Secondarily, congregational church government can be argued from the New Testament teaching about the authority of the local church to elect its own leaders. This is congregational in nature. A pastor is not appointed of a Baptist church by some bishop, some outside authority, some presbytery giving some license or legitimacy, but rather the local church chooses its leaders.
And we have a number of examples of this in the New Testament. We would argue that the selection of the apostle Matthias in Acts chapter 1 suggests congregational.
Polity.
We read in Acts 1 that the 120 disciples gathered in Jerusalem, they selected Matthias who would replace Judas Iscariot, who had betrayed the Lord. They needed 12 disciples because there were 12 tribes of Israel, and these were going to be leaders of Israel under the new covenant.
And so we read that the 120 disciples, which would have constituted the church at Jerusalem before Pentecost, corporately determined who the replacement of Judas would be. They cast their lots and the lot fell on Matthias and he was numbered with the 11 apostles.
It was an action of the congregation, the 120 disciples. A second example is when we read of the selection of the seven men to oversee the ministry to the Christian widows in Jerusalem. This also reflects congregational polity.
We read of a problem that emerged in the church at Jerusalem and how the church resolved the.
Matter.
This is found in Acts chapter 6, verse 1 and following. Now in those days when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists. Let me just interject here an explanation.
The Hebrews would have been the Palestinian Jewish Christians who were very devout, linked to the temple principally, even as Christians. They were Palestinian Jewish Christians. And then we see there is a complaint against them, the Hebrew Christians, by the Hellenists.
Hellenists is a word for the Greek culture, the broad culture of the Roman Empire in the first century. These would have been Christians who were rather broad-minded, who were not as rigid and strict, say, as the Hebrew Christians of Jerusalem.
And these Greek Christians felt like the widows in their church or churches were being neglected and favor was being shown to the more orthodox Hebrew Christian widows. And so we read, it was the Hellenists that had the problem because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution, probably of food and clothing.
Then the Twelve, this would have been the Apostles, summoned the multitude of the disciples, that would have been the church, and said, it is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables, therefore brethren, now this is instruction to the disciples, the church, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
The church selected the men, the Apostles ordained them, in other words, conferred authority, recognized their selection. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word, and the saying, please, the whole multitude.
And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith in the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Procurus, Nicanor, Timon, Arminus, Nicholas, a proselyte from Antioch. Interestingly, all of these men had Hellenistic names, and so they chose these men, and many argued that these were the first deacons, although it does not declare that, but they were all from that Hellenist camp, and they were appointed over the distribution of goods and money to the widows, the Christian widows within the church.
And so the Apostles instructed the church collectively to select seven men whom the Apostles would appoint over this ministry. They, the disciples of the church, selected seven men. They brought these men before the Apostles, whom the Apostles appointed over this ministry.
The church as a whole made the selection. This again is consistent with congregational church policy and polity, church government. Another example. We read of the selection of delegates to accompany the Apostles to Jerusalem.
This is consistent with congregational church government. The Apostle Paul had raised a rather significant amount of money over many, many months' time, perhaps well over a year. He intended to gather this money from Gentile churches to send it to Jerusalem in order to buy food for Christians there, for they were laboring under a very great famine.
In advance to Paul coming through to the church at Corinth, he wrote to the church to have the collection gathered before his arrival. He didn't want them getting a collection together once he was there.
He wanted to come in, take the collection, and go on, move onward. And so he also instructed the church to select delegates who would join with his party to escort the offering to Jerusalem. There's principles of stewardship here that I think are very important, by the way.
The Apostle Paul was getting money from the church at Corinth. He wanted the church at Corinth to appoint some delegates to go with him to assure that it was going to arrive safely and that their money, their investment, would be preserved and protected.
There's openness and honesty about finances here. There's nothing hidden, but rather it was completely open before the entire church. Well, we read in the first verse of 1 Corinthians 16, the instruction of the Apostle.
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also on the first day of the week, Sunday, let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there may be no collections when I come.
And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters, that's instruction to the church, I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. But if it's fitting that I go also, they will go with me. And now I will come to you when I pass through Macedonia, for I am passing through Macedonia, and it may be that I will remain or even spend the winter with you, that you may send me on my journey wherever I go.
This passage not only shows that the church was to select those who would represent their church and escort Paul perhaps and his companions, but it also shows that the congregation of the church at Corinth had congregational responsibility over its collection of money and its distribution.
The congregational form of church government is clearly illustrated here. Another example, we have the selection of elders or bishops in the churches, and it was through congregational deliberation. There may be some difference of opinion here, but listen to this.
We read in Acts 14 .23 of the apostles' ordination of elders in the churches that they started on their first missionary journey. There we read,. And when they, Paul and Barnabas, had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, saying, We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.
And here it is,. So when they had appointed elders in every church and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. It may appear that this passage indicates that Paul and those in his ministry team had chosen the elders, not the churches.
The churches did not choose the elders, but rather Paul and his team. But it has been argued that this passage reflects what is found elsewhere, that Paul had appointed or rather ordained the elders that the church had itself selected from among them.
One commentator on the Greek text wrote,. There is no reason for departing from the usual meaning of electing by show of hands. And he is suggesting the Greek language suggests this. The apostles may have admitted to ordination those presbyters whom the church has selected.
In other words, the elders whom the church has selected. And so basically they're saying that Paul ordained these men as elders, and that's what's intended by selecting them. And in fact, it's been argued that every English translation prior to the King James, instead of translating it so when they had appointed elders, but rather when they had ordained elders in every church and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they.
Believe.
In a similar way, the Greek scholar Lange says the expression suggests the thought that the apostles may have appointed and superintended a congregational election. And this view is supported by the circumstances related.
Where the twelve directed that the election of the seven should be held. In other words, just like we have in Acts chapter six. And then Harvey, a Baptist historian, wrote,. All the early English translations previous to King James, which was prepared under the influence of prelacy, translate, ordained them elders by election in every congregation.
I am guessing I could be mistaken, but I'm guessing that's probably how Wycliffe translated.
It.
Well, here is a summary of the matter. It seems clear, therefore, that the selection of officers of the congregation was the established principle of procedure. In those instances, therefore, where the apostles or evangelists are said to ordain elders, the presumption is that, as in the more fully related cases like Acts 6, they ordained men previously selected by the people.
Indeed, in a voluntary body, the right to choose its own officers is inherent. Unless therefore it is expressly ordained otherwise, this right remains in the church. But there is in Scripture neither record or intimation of a different principle of selection.
Some may take that argument to be legitimate. Some may question it, and I would understand their questioning it. But we would argue that the selection of elders, if it was the Apostle Paul and his team that did that, we could argue, I think, pretty convincingly that that was an apostolic function, that Paul had that authority.
But clearly they recognized the autonomy and the authority of local churches, the independence.
Of local churches.
A third reason we can argue for congregational church polity is that in the New Testament, the local church sent out missionaries to the mission field. Here we see the authority of the church. The local church at Jerusalem was the first church to send out a missionary.
It was not Paul, by the way, but rather Barnabas. We read in Acts 11, Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.
But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.
Here it is.
Then news of these things came to the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. Who sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch? The church at Jerusalem, the gathered church.
That is consistent with congregational polity. Later, we read of the first missionary journey of the Apostle Paul. It occurred in Antioch. We read in Acts 13 .1 and following this account. Now in the church, it was at Antioch, there were certain prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon, who is called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Menean, who had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul.
That would have been Paul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, The Lord used this church at Antioch to call and send out the first missionaries to the Gentile world. This church had in its midst certain prophets and teachers.
The Holy Spirit spoke to them directly of His intention to send forth Paul and Barnabas. But it would seem that the church as a whole recognized these men and intended to send them forth. They commissioned these men to their work and sent them forth to their work.
It should be the members of the church or the elders of the church representing all the members of the church having fasted and prayed, laid hands on them and sent them away. Paul and Barnabas went forth because the church, the congregation, sent them forth.
Here we see the single entity, the single identity, and the single authority of the local church as a body acting and sending forth these men onto the mission field. Now, later, when Paul returned from this missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas, we have their return recorded in Acts 14.
The first action they took when they returned was to report to the gathered church that had sent them the results of their mission. And so we read in Acts 14 .26. From there they sailed to Antioch where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work which they had completed.
Now look at verse 27. Now when they had come and gathered the church together they reported all that God had done with them. It doesn't say that when they had come they gathered the elders together and reported to them or the pastor or the deacons, but rather the church.
Here again you have a high, exalted view of the local church sent forth. The local church had sent these men. The local church received a report back from them after they had completed the journey, the mission to which they were sent.
And so here we see the centrality and the role of the local church at Antioch. A fourth argument that can be set forth for congregational church government. The local church sent delegates to the church at Jerusalem for counsel regarding a problem in their church.
This is one passage which our Presbyterian friends argue a case for a presbytery outside of the local church. But we would argue and reason no, but rather the church at Antioch sent for counsel from the church at Jerusalem and received it as counsel from that church.
Let's consider what we have before us. The congregation of the church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in order to consult the apostles and the church at Jerusalem about the matter of Gentile conversion to Jesus Christ.
Do we require these Gentile Christians to become Jews, to be circumcised, to keep the law, as the nation of Israel was to keep the law? We read about it in Acts 15. Certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.
They were teaching Gentile Christians this. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, it must have been a public gathering of the church,.
Disputing.
They determined that Paul and Barnabas, who is the they? That would be the church at Antioch. They determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question, so being sent on their way by the church.
Congregational polity. They passed through Phoenicia, Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles. They caused great joy to all the brethren, and when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church.
See, one church to another church. It wasn't one church to the presbytery, or even to the apostles. They went to the church at Jerusalem, where, of course, the apostles were, but the elders were there too.
In fact, James, the half-brother of our Lord, was a non-apostle, and he seemed to be the head spokesman of the church at Jerusalem. And so when they came to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and elders, and they reported all things that God had done with them.
And then when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from Jerusalem, they delivered the recommendation of the church at Jerusalem to the gathered church at Antioch. So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch, and notice, when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.
That would be the letter from the church at Jerusalem, which was the church at Jerusalem's council in this matter. The church, local church, received counsel from the church at Jerusalem. The church at Antioch accepted the advice given to them.
We see the preeminence of the local church in resolving these matters in the congregation. The church at Antioch did not send their delegates to a presbytery or a synod, or for that matter, to a bishop or a cardinal, in order to obtain a directive from a higher authority.
The church at Antioch sent representatives of their church to another church, a more mature church, the church at Jerusalem, in order to receive their counsel as to what they should do about this matter.
The church at Jerusalem did not send an edict or a command to the church at Antioch, but rather it made known to the other church the results of its own deliberation on this matter. The members of the church in Jerusalem gave their opinion of the matter, an opinion derived from their wisdom and experience.
What is illustrated here is that each local church was independent and governed itself. Each church recognized and respected the independence of the other church. This passage reflects congregational church government.
Not much later, after these events, Paul determined to begin his second missionary journey in order to follow up on the churches he had begun on his first missionary journey. He did not simply take off.
He and Silas. After he had that problem with Barnabas and they separated. We read in Acts 15 .39 what happened. So Barnabas took Mark's hail to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God.
See, Paul went before the church at Antioch once again, didn't he? He wanted their endorsement. He wanted to be sent out by them. Paul had this desired intention to come before the local church that they would send him forth on this mission.
Again, this is consistent with congregational church government. Now I know the time, you know, we're perhaps becoming laborious to you, but please be patient as we want to wrap this up. A fourth argument for congregational church government is the dominant place the local church plays in the New Testament scriptures.
We find in the New Testament great attention and direction given to the institution and the order of the local church. All of the epistles were either written directly to a church, or the content of the epistle addressed the doctrine, practice, and ministry of a local church.
Every one of them. Even Paul's epistle to Philemon regarding his relationship to his runaway Onesimus, and our friend David Green pointed this out to me a couple weeks ago, even that letter of Paul to Philemon was addressed to Philemon and to the church in his house.
Interesting. We read in the opening words of that epistle, Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus in Timothy, our brother to Philemon, and our beloved friend and fellow laborer to the beloved Appiah in Archippus, a fellow soldier, and to the church in your house.
And that was even a personal letter that Paul was writing to this man. And so as we said last week, we affirm again. When we consider all of the interaction and activities of the congregations, we see that these could only take place in churches that operated with a congregational form of church government.
The decisions that churches made could only take place in a church setting in which there was corporate deliberation, interaction among the members, due consideration by the members. Everyone has a voice.
And perhaps even debate taking place. Paul said, I didn't give space of an hour to these people. There was debate going on in the church about the matter at hand. And then the decisions these churches made and the action these churches took would involve interaction with one another, members of the church, perhaps appeals being made, persuasive arguments put forth, and then a collective decision and unified action resulting.
That's congregational church government, folks. But we need to close things up, wrap things up today, with addressing this matter that introduces for us perhaps the subject of church leadership, and particularly elders and their role within the church.
Again, what we've shown to be the New Testament teaching on congregational church government, we would argue we'll find different ways of expression in different settings. Depending on the nature of any one congregation, perhaps the personality and character of the leadership, there may be varied degrees to which the congregation is involved in corporate decisions.
It might be assumed that the nature of congregational church government is that of a democracy. That's only partly right. Indeed, the government of Baptist churches has been recognized by some as really stellar examples of democracy.
I think it was Thomas Jefferson. I read the quote a couple weeks ago. I couldn't find it this week when I was looking for it. But I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said, you want to see where democracy is most beautifully illustrated?
Look at the Baptist churches around us. Interestingly. But actually the term democracy is not really true to our practice. For we are governed not by whose view or opinion garners the most votes and then gives direction to our church, but rather it's our collective effort to assess the will of God in a matter.
And that's therefore outside of a democracy. It really is a theocracy. It's just we collectively as a body are trying to determine what the will of Christ is. The 19th century Baptist theologian Augustus Strong expressed it this way.
Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare majority. When there are opposing convictions on the part of a large minority. What should rule is the mind of the spirit. What indicates his mind is the gradual, it may take time, gradual unification of conviction and opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite plan so that the whole church moves together.
The large church has the advantage over the small church and that the single crotchety member cannot do much harm. One man in a small boat can easily upset it, but not so in a great ship. Patient waiting, persuasion, prayer will ordinarily win over the recalcitrant.
It is not to be denied, however, that patience may have its limits and that unity may sometimes need to be purchased by secession and the forming of a new local church whose members can work harmoniously together.
And, you know, Paul and Barnabas split over a matter and sometimes churches do too. And I wonder if the Lord doesn't sometimes further his work in that way. Some churches have tried to operate on the principle that there must be a 100 agreement of the members before action is taken.
They argue a complete consensus is the way to determine the will of God. This is unreasonable and unwise. I had a friend in seminary, Larry Dodson, who I commuted with him to seminary, 117 miles one way, he went with me for about three years or so.
And he was called to pastor in Folsom, California, a suburb of Sacramento. I pastored our church also in that town. But he was not the church's first choice. There was a man before him that he had candidated and the church wanted him.
But when the vote came, the whole congregation voted to call him except for one rather mentally challenged woman who raised her hand in opposition. They didn't call the man because their bylaws required a 100 consensus.
And so there was quite a bit of concern when Larry came and he was interviewed and the time for the vote came and this woman was in the congregation. And so they made sure that one of the other members who knew her sat next to her and distracted her while the vote was being taken.
And so 100 voted to call Larry. It was just an unwise principle of determining how a congregational church government should take place. But some Baptist churches carry forward this matter of congregational church government in unhealthy and unwise ways.
And please recognize this. You have congregations that vote virtually on every decision and action occurs in the life of the church. And that is unwise and unhealthy. Years ago I heard of a Baptist church down south who couldn't agree on the color of the carpet.
They had a middle aisle. There were two colors of carpet right down the middle of the church. It's a poor way to govern a church. Clearly the New Testament shows the church selects leaders, both elders and deacons, to help manage and govern the church.
They serve at the behest of the congregation. But the congregation entrusts them with clearly defined responsibilities. Those leaders are then entrusted by the local church body with responsibility to manage and make decisions on behalf of the congregation.
That is, on those decisions that don't rise to the level of calling for congregational discussion and vote. We went through this a couple months ago when it was determined we needed to transfer some money into the operating budget, $30 ,000.
And the deacons were talking about the need. And clearly the deacons recognized this rises beyond our authority. This needs to come before the congregation. However, the congregation allows for the deacons to make decisions on a smaller scale with regard to the budget and how to manage financial resources.
And if you had to take every item, everything, before the congregation, it would be mass confusion. And it would be unwise. And it's needless. I have a book that I'm reading, Who Runs the Church? Four Views on Church Government.
And the four views in this book contain the three that we've mentioned, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Congregational. But there are actually two sections on Congregational. One man advocates Congregational church government with a single pastor or elder.
And then the fourth category is Congregational church by multiple elders. And there are Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, and then two Baptists that put forth these four views. And after each one puts forth their view, each of the others critique it.
It's really quite a good book. And Sam Waldron represented the position that we hold, Congregational church government, and yet led by multiple elders. And in his portion of the discussion, he mentioned this issue.
And I want to close with reading this passage, which I think brings the matter to our attention. In the second place, plural elder congregationalism is plural elder church government. Plural elder church government means that each local church should be led under normal circumstances by a plurality of elders.
It is clear that here I agree with my Presbyterian brother and disagree with my Baptist brother. That was the Baptist brother who was arguing for single elder Congregational rule. He was actually siding with the Presbyterians who argued for multiple elders in the church.
Presbyterian churches on a local level are led by a plurality of elders. Single elder Congregational churches, of course, are not. But this is not the whole story. For here we confront the problem of Congregationalism in the sense of democratic rule.
Versus by elders in the local church. Many evangelicals today have discovered in their New Testament that local churches should have, and thus be led by elders. This renewed interest in elders has created a reaction against the radical democratic form of government practiced in many evangelical churches.
It is common for those who have discovered the biblical teaching about elders to say that they believe in rule by elders and not Congregationalism in the sense of democracy. I suspect that most who say this only believe in rule by elders in comparison or as relative to the Congregational democracy with which they have been acquainted.
In other words, they've seen some of these abusive congregations that vote on every minor point. The rule of elders in the Reformed tradition makes the decisions of the eldership authoritative regardless of the consent of the church as a whole.
Here he is talking about Presbyterianism, for example. In other words, regardless of the congregation, the elders are the ones who dictate, this is the way we are going. James Bannerman, a respected Presbyterian author, makes clear what rule by elder has meant historically by Presbyterians.
The system of Presbyterianism requires that every proper means be employed in the way of explanation, persuasion, and instruction to secure the concurrence of the members in the acts and proceedings of the rulers of the Christian society.
In other words, the elders are supposed to persuade the congregation to follow their leadership. But Presbyterians do not, like Independents, hold that this consent is a condition upon which the lawfulness of the acts of the lawless bearers is suspended, or as much a necessary element in any judgment of the ecclesiastical body as the consent of the rulers themselves.
In other words, they do not look at the congregation ultimately as the authority in matters, but rather the elders are the authority in the matters, and the congregation has no choice but to do what the elders tell them to do.
He writes on,. On the contrary, the consent of the members is, upon the Presbyterian theory, a consent added to the authoritative decision of the office bearers, not entering into it as an element necessary to its validity, without which it would be neither lawful nor binding.
And then Sam Waldron states,. When I defend the leadership of the plurality of elders in the local church, I do not intend to defend the Presbyterian view in this matter. In other words, it is just set forth in this paragraph.
Of course, this does not mean that I am happy with the typical democratic congregationalism of most Independent churches today. Furthermore, it seems to me that a biblical appreciation of the plurality of elders in the local churches must logically and practically tend to modify and restrain the radical democratic tendencies of many evangelical churches today.
Even if we reject the Presbyterian version of elder rule, there is a kind of tension, and this is what I want to acknowledge, there is a kind of tension between a democratic view of church government and a plural elder view of church government.
And what that means, when it is all boiled down, is that the elders have to have a healthy regard and respect for the authority that the Lord Jesus has given our congregation. And I would argue, therefore, leadership of a pastor or elder is primarily in the realm of persuasion.
This is what the scriptures say. This is the way we ought to go. And also, by example, and to say that otherwise is investing authority in the elder himself by virtue of being an elder. I am an elder, so you do what I say.
And I don't think that that is biblical leadership. I don't think it's spiritual. And so I think that our church functions well. We have a proper, I think, a biblical understanding of congregational church government, and yet we recognize the need for elders and shepherding and leadership.
And so now we'll proceed from here, begin next week, Lord willing, and begin to talk about how the church functions with God-ordained elders. But it's within the realm of congregational church government, which we see demonstrated in so many various ways.
Let's pray. Thank you, Father, for your word, and we thank you, our God, that you have not left us without witness to attempt to determine for ourselves how to function, but you have prescribed quite clearly by a clear direction and certainly illustration, historical example, on how we should function.
And we just pray that you would help us, our God as a church, to be faithful to you in all these matters. Forgive us, our Lord, where we're weak and we fail, and help us, our Lord, to move into the future in a manner and a way that can receive your greatest blessing.
For we pray in Jesus' name, amen.