Menu

4 Sermon Illustrations on Church Government

4 illustrations

Church government refers to the divinely ordained structure and authority within the local assembly, ensuring order and protection against false teachings (1 Timothy 3:4-5). Illustrations often depict the church as a well-guarded household or a disciplined body, emphasizing the need for wise leadership and spiritual oversight (Hebrews 13:17).

The Misdirected Letter

A misdirected letter's advice symbolically teaches guarding the church from harmful influences.

"The Rev. Mr. Bulkley of Colchester, Conn., was famous in his day as a casuist and sage counsellor. A church in his neighborhood had fallen into unhappy divisions and contentions, which they were unable to adjust among themselves. They deputed one of their number to the venerable Bulkley, for his services, with a request that he would send it to them in writing The matters were taken into serious consideration, and the advice, with much deliberation, committed to writing. It so happened, that Mr. Bulkley had a farm in an extreme part of the town, upon which he intrusted a tenant. In superscribing the two letters, the one for the church was directed to the tenant, and the one for the tenant to the church. The church was convened to hear the advice which was to settle all their disputes. The moderator read as follows: *You will see to the repair of the fences, that they be built high and strong, and you will take special care of the old black bull.* This mystical advice puzzled the church at first, but an interpreter among the more discerning ones was soon found, who said, Brethren, this is the very advice we must need; the direction to repair the fences is to admonish us to take good heed in the admission and government of our members; we must guard the church by our Master's laws, and keep out strange cattle from the fold. And we must in a particular manner set a watchful guard over the *Devil*, the old black bull, who has done so much hurt of late.

### 135. DISCIPLINING

#### 135. Disciplining Children in Infancy.

Baptists: Who Are They?

Philippians 2:10

(The following is an edited abridgment of a 32-page booklet by Rowland Croucher, 'Baptist Church Membership' and comes from an Australian viewpoint).

_________________________________

Baptists begin a discussion about themselves by trying to understand the 'Good News', the 'gospel'. In essence, Paul says (Philippians 2:10-11), the 'Good News' is that 'JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!' That's where Baptists start their thinking. This isn't just an abstract doctrine - it means that he's our Master, our King. We are his obedient servants, his subjects, who do what he commands. He is the ultimate authority for all thinking and acting. He is God the Son, through whom everything came into being and before whom everyone will ultimately 'fall on their knees'.

Jesus Christ is Lord - or 'Head' - of the Church, his Body. So Christians are people who both individually and collectively, are constantly asking: 'What does our Lord want us to believe, and what does he want us to do?'

This leads us to the Bible, in which the mind of Christ is revealed. The Bible is God's Word, his authoritative guide for our faith and practice. It is the inspired and trustworthy record of the mighty acts of God in the history of his people Israel and fulfilled in the life, teachings, and saving work of Christ.

So Baptists are encouraged to be keen 'Bible people', seeking with and open and reverent mind to understand what God is saying to us today. Sometimes we won't find specific answers to all our modern problems there, but we'll always find God's guiding principles. The greatest principle, or commandment, said Jesus, is to 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength'. And the second greatest: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself'.

For Baptists, then, God alone is the sovereign Lord. They have always tried to follow the apostolic principle: 'We must obey God rather than humans'. Baptists reject doctrines or practices which either contradict or are not in harmony with Christ's will revealed in the Bible. They have simply believed that most of the differences between churches would be resolved if apostolic principles and practices were held in their true scriptural relationship with one another. And so, for just about every question we reply with another: 'What does the Bible say?'

But this doesn't mean Baptists arrogantly believe they are the only ones who are right. No one (except God alone) has 'a monopoly on the truth'. We are humble fellow-learners with others who also submit to the truth of Scripture. And 'God has yet more light and truth to break forth from his holy Word'. A Baptist says with love, to another Christian: 'You are my brother/sister, not because we happen to agree on everything, but because we are both God's children'. This is why Baptists have produced written 'confessions' but never written 'creeds'. Creeds become 'locked into' the particular questions of one historical era, and later Christians may be asking some different questions. Further, creeds tend to make people 'exclusive' - if you don't dot all the i's and cross all the t's you're not acceptable. Baptists aim rather to be inclusive: our bond is simply our common relationship to Jesus Christ.

This leads us to another Baptist emphasis -

The Church = 'The Company of The Committed'

It is not uncommon for Baptist church constitutions to begin: 'The church shall be composed of those... who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and Lord'. When Baptists throughout their history have been asked 'Who belongs to the church?' their response is always: 'Only those who've deliberately chosen to follow the way of Jesus - the "regenerate", those born again!'

Perhaps this can best be explained by taking a short journey into the past.

Baptists trace their spiritual history back to people like the 'Anabaptists' ('re-baptisers') in 16th century Europe. It was the time when Luther, Calvin, and other 'Protestants' urged people to go back to the Bible for their instructions about faith and living, and reject doctrines and practices in the Church of Rome which they believed were unbiblical. For example, they talked about 'the priesthood of all believers'. The Church of Rome made ordinary believers dependent upon the mediation of the priests, but these 'Reformers' proclaimed the right of every Christian to have access to God through the mediation of Christ alone. They encouraged ordinary people to read the Word of God (something rare - and even forbidden by the church authorities in those days). They said that every Christian has the Holy Spirit who inspired the writing of Scripture, so God can speak to them by this same Spirit as they read the Bible. You and I don't need the authorities in the church to tell us what to believe - it's all there in God's holy Word.

The Anabaptists, however, said Luther and Calvin and the others didn't take their 'Reformation' far enough. They agreed that 'If it's in the Bible we believe it; if it isn't, we reject it, even though centuries of Christian history are behind a particular belief'. But they objected to the close alliance between church and state which had gone on for more than a thousand years. They also rejected infant baptism, which they believed, served to perpetuate state churches filled with nominal Christians.

Meanwhile, over in England, a 'Puritan' movement emerged within the Church of England, calling that church back to the Scriptures. One learned man, Rev. John Smyth, M.A. (a Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge University), became a city lecturer at Lincoln at the turn of the 17th century - a post which allowed him to expound the Scriptures to his townspeople who weren't satisfied with the teaching they were receiving in their churches. When things got 'too hot' for these Puritans, some went as refugees to Holland. There John Smyth continued to study the Scriptures, and with the help of some Dutch Mennonites (an Anabaptist group), came to hold certain convictions which Baptists have maintained ever since. In 1609 he became the leader of the first English-speaking 'Baptist' church.

He saw - with the Anabaptists - that 'established churches' weren't an apostolic idea at all. You become a member of these churches through infant baptism, and everyone in a particular community - or 'parish' - therefore almost automatically belonged to the 'parish church'. Now that's all wrong, these Baptists said. Only people who've had a personal encounter with Christ can belong to the church. You can't be born a Christian: at some point in your life you choose to belong to Christ's church, when you repent of your sins and commit your life willingly to him.

So Baptists have always been wary of alliances between churches and the state authorities. They've said governments shouldn't influence - or interfere with - the free choice people make about their allegiance to Christ and the church. They have taken the idea a step further, too, and until recently, have generally refused government funding for their Christian ministries. (Today government grants may be accepted for educational and social welfare purposes, but not usually for worship and pastoral ministries.)

Because people willingly choose to belong to the church, a high standard of Christian behaviour and discipleship is expected of members of Baptist churches. Because they possess God's Holy Spirit, they should live on a higher plane than non-Christians. Sometimes 'church discipline' has to be lovingly but firmly extended towards those who bring the faith of Christ into disrepute by their disobedient behaviour.

Many Anabaptists and early Baptists were martyred (often by drowning, 'seeing they like so much water,' their enemies said) for these beliefs.

WHO RUNS THE CHURCH?

The short answer, of course: Christ does! It's his church. When members of his body meet, he's there with them. Christ is both the Lord of the redeemed person and the redeemed community. Both have his Holy Spirit to guide them, and are therefore sufficiently 'competent' to know his will. So local Baptist churches are 'autonomous' - they govern themselves. (Look up Acts 13:1,2 for a New Testament example of a local church acting on its own initiative.) Baptists therefore do not recognize the power of a bishop, synod, conference, or assembly to determine or overrule the decisions of a local church.

Sometimes, however, these churches may cooperate, and form 'Unions' (there is a 'Baptist Union' of churches in each Australian state, in Australia as a whole, and in New Zealand). These associations of churches co-ordinate Baptists' joint efforts to obey the great commission. Such Unions may appoint officers to guide in specific areas of ministry such as home missions (helping younger churches to get going), overseas missions and training future pastors. There is no fixed plan or pattern here: these structures are very flexible, change from time to time, and differ in various countries.

Local churches - like individual Christians - need each other. The challenge facing us is to encourage self-governing churches to become more 'inter-dependent' rather than 'independent'.

The Baptist Unions (or Conventions or Associations, as they are called in some places) are mostly affiliated with the Baptist World Alliance, which has about 30 millian members in 117,000 churches. (The U.S. has the largest number - 25 million, followed by India - 815,000, U.S.S.R. - 545,000, Brazil - 464,000 and Burma - 358,000. Australian Baptist church members number about 53,000, New Zealand 18,000).

# Generally Baptists haven't been keen on 'organic' unity with other Christian denominations. Some Baptist groups have joined the World Council of Churches, while others feel they ought to preserve their distinctiveness by remaining outside such bodies. Baptists don't claim to be 'the only true church': they want to learn humbly from others. They believe that what unites Christians is far more decisive and basic than what divides them. However they have mostly felt that their special Scriptural insights are best preserved by staying 'Baptists'. What do you think? Is this likely to change?

How is a local church governed? Baptists are 'congregational'. They meet, free from any 'outside' control, to arrive at a consensus about God's will, through Bible study, prayer, and discussion. A British Baptist statement (1948) says such a church meeting is 'the occasion when, as individuals and as a community, we submit ourselves to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and stand under the judgment of God that we may know the mind of Christ'.

The aim of each congregation will be to reflect the character of Jesus in all that it does. So persons will matter more than agendas or programs or constitutions! We will love and respect those with whom we may disagree. Although Baptist church members' meetings are democratic (any member is free to speak on any matter on the agenda), they are really, in essence, theocratic (ruled by God), so members don't have the right to say anything they please - but only what is loving, constructive, true, and that which humbly seeks the mind of Christ. Because they affirm diversity within their Fellowships they will sometimes 'agree to differ - agreeably' on some issues. So Baptists have generally been happy with 'majority voting' on all but really major issues (which may require a large majority, or, occasionally, total unanimity). Some churches seldom take a vote - they will discuss issues until a general consensus is achieved, or failing that, will defer the matter for further prayerful thought and consideration.

LEADERSHIP

Christ appointed leaders to serve the church. There's a list of these in Ephesians 4. Apostles, prophets and evangelists were generally 'itinerant' - they moved around among several churches. 'Pastor- teachers' were (and are) shepherds - feeding Christ's flock and caring for it. Their task: to equip all the members so that they will become spiritually mature.

Most Baptist churches have one pastor (although some are now appointing two or more). He or she is generally considered the leader, although neither the pastor/s nor any other person has the final word in the church's affairs: that's the prerogative of the members' meeting. Sometimes, therefore, the pastor is said to be 'the first among equals'. Pastors are servants of the church, but the church is not their master - Christ is.

The pastors' priorities: Bible study, prayer, and training others for ministry. They're a sort of 'player-coach' encouraging others to serve, witness and visit. Church members are not helpers of the pastor, so that the pastor can do their job; pastors are helpers of the whole people of God, so that they all can be the church (to paraphrase Hans Ruedi Weber). Pastors must be encouraged to keep themselves 'in training for a godly life', so the congregation will allow them time for study and reflection. Remember that your pastors are human: they, too, have doubts, fears, and frustrations. Please don't add to them! Francis Schaeffer says pastors often unwittingly break the tenth commandment - they are covetous of the successes or gifts of other pastors. Remedy? Affirm your pastor, so they know they're loved! If you appreciate them, tell them so!

In the New Testament, bishops or elders (both words describe the same people) were the 'overseers' of the churches. These leaders 'work hard', perform pastoral duties and help make important decisions. Only those with the appropriate 'gifts' should be appointed elders - not just to 'fill the number'. It's better to have no elders than the wrong ones. Each elder ought to have a list of those they are shepherding, and these people know they can turn to their elder at any time. (A ratio of one elder to 12 persons or family groups is recommended.)

Deacons are 'servants'. Both Jesus and Paul used this word of themselves. Their tasks: administrative leadership, policy-making, and planning.

Both elders and deacons have 'spiritual' ministries. They are accountable to the church members. The personal and spiritual qualities of these leaders are spelt out in 1 Timothy 3: 1-13. Note that such appointments have nothing to do with age, sex, or status. Spiritual leadership is not for people who like to be 'bossy'; the badge of office for all followers of Christ is a towel! Both groups (if your church has both) ought to be commissioned by the congregation, who will pray for them earnestly. These 'servants' will lead by encouragement and example, rather than by coercion. They will generally plan openly rather than covertly. They will continually inform their people of their doings, and will invite feed-back from the members. Occasionally they will 'retreat' ('advance'?) for times of prayer, study and discussion.

# Discuss: Paul says (Galatians 3:28) that Jesus has healed divisions between Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free-people, males and females. The early church was ahead of its time in granting 'personhood' to women, and many fulfilled public ministries. American Baptists (from 80 years ago) and Southern Baptists (from 20 years ago) in the U.S. have occasionally ordained women for pastoral ministry, as have Baptists in Britain, Canada, New Zealand and some Australian states. Leon Morris, an Anglican scholar, says women in the early church did more than 'keep silence when it was a question of expounding the Christian faith'. Some Baptists have emphasised the 'submission' and 'keeping quiet' passages. Others say that the principle of Galatians 3:28 is to be applied appropriately within each culture. What do you think?

CHALLENGES FACING BAPTISTS IN THE '90'S

Having pastored Baptist churches for 30 years, spoken to all the Baptist pastors' conferences around Australia and preached in about 200 Baptist churches, here are my suggestions about the issues Baptists are facing. They vary in intensity from state to state and church to church.

1. Baptist pharisaism. The essential issue here is the elevation of dogma or church rules over 'accepting' those whom God accepts (Romans 15:7). The two key issues are social justice (Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42) and open membership. Until recently Baptists were quite muted about their concern for the poor, and the causes of such poverty. Fortunately they are reading Jesus and the prophets again! On the issue of open membership, see my paper on the subject. Briefly, if Jesus said accepting people is more important than sticking to ordinances (even an important ordinance like baptism) then let's follow Jesus rather than the pharisees! Nothing can be added to grace, not even baptism. The Baptist principle of 'liberty of conscience' should apply here as everywhere else. A system which allows a sexually active young person or greedy adult to be a member of most of our churches (and they are!) but not a godly Anglican or Salvationist has got to have something wrong with it. Baptists have to be reminded they're Christians first, Baptists second.

2. The Leadership Ministries of Women. In the NT women were quite prominent in the churches, despite strong patriarchal cultures. Today, the church is creating a scandal by appearing to treat women as second-class citizens. Only two Australian Baptist Unions (Victoria and South Australia) recognize the pastoral leadership gifts of women: if God were to raise up a Deborah to lead the whole people of God today most of us wouldn't let him to it! We should be grateful God is not a legalist! (See my paper on Women in Leadership).

3. Charismatic Renewal. People who derive their security from the predictable institutions or dogmas they adhere to will always be threatened by notions of renewal, particularly radical renewal. The impact of charismatic renewal is no exception. The Holy Spirit is moving in dynamic ways through all the churches and in all the world, but traditionalists will find themselves opposing anything which is not part of their cherished history. Although the devil as well as the Holy Spirit is operative in some aspects of charismatic renewal, Baptists and others will need to be careful about the dangers of fighting God: they can't win! (See my paper 'Charismatic Renewal: Myths and Realities').

4. Institutional Renewal. About 95% of Australian Baptists agree with the statement 'There's something wrong with the way our church business meetings are conducted'. The 5% who enjoy power-broking or have an excess of spare time on their hands or enjoy the thrill of swaying the voting intentions of others will derive some enjoyment from church business meetings. Baptists have equated congregationalism with democracy: modern notions of democracy are not biblical. Baptists also have forgotten that the NT has three forms of church government - episcopal, presbyterian as well as congregational. Baptists have also allowed their adherence to a notion of 'the priesthood of all believers' to contaminate their polity: believers should not use church meetings as a forum to be negative. Church meetings exist for information-dissemination (what God is doing amongst us), celebration (worshipping the Lord who is the head of the church) and discernment (prayerfully finding the will of our Lord in specific situations). Whilst the method of decision-making will vary from culture to culture, and issue to issue, neither democracy nor unanimity is appropriate in every situation. (Democracy may mean the leading families rule; unanimity may leave us all at the mercy of the 'nut' who will vote 'no' to everything!).

5. Ecumenism. Baptists may have some justifiable reasons to be leary of some things the World Council of Churches does. But they have no justifiable reason for non-cooperation with others who 'acknowledge Jesus Christ as Saviour Lord and God, according to the Scriptures'. We must not do anything to negate our Lord's prayer 'that they may be one'.

6. Evangelism. The idea of 'seeker services' is not new: it was there in apostolic times, according to Michael Green (Evangelism Through the Local Church). Neighbourhood 'coffee 'n dessert' nights, friendship services, Christianity Explained courses - these and many other tools are available for us to reach out to those the New Testament calls 'the lost'.

7. Clericalism. The Christian Brethren movement have had a valid objection to 'clergy running the church and denying others a ministry'. Baptists are still plagued by clericalism, whereby pastors accrue power rather than disseminating it. The task of church leaders is to train and empower others for ministry, not do it for them! (See ch. 31 'Ministry as Empowerment' in my Your Church Can Come Alive).

_____________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Baptist Heritage, H. Leon McBeth (Broadman, 1987): a comprehensive 850-page overview of Baptist history and emphases, mainly from a North American perspective.

Challenge to Change: A Radical Agenda for Baptists, Nigel Wright (Kingsway 1991) 'calls for consensus over constitution, power over programme evangelism, and makes a case for Baptist bishops'.

A Community of Believers by Charles W. Deweese (Judson, 1978), a good general handbook, with a useful discussion on 'church covenants'

Growing on Together (Baptist Union of NSW), a simple, readable paper-back written by Australian Baptists.

Church Members'Kit, produced by the pastoral team of the Blackburn Baptist Church (13 Holland Rd, Blackburn, Australia. 3130).

Studies in Baptism by Basil S. Brown (Clifford Press, Melbourne), a 32-page summary of the meaning of Baptism by a former Australian theological college professor.

The Church, a Baptist View (Gordon W. Martin), Authority, a Baptist View (B.R. White), Freedom, a Baptist View(J.H. Briggs), Baptism, a Baptist View (John W. Matthews), Children in the Church, a Baptist View (D.F. Tennant), Ministry, a Baptist View (John F. Nicholson), booklets produced by the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland. (Australian agents - Clifford Press, Melbourne)

The Baptist Church Member (Baptist Church Life and Ministry, Victoria), 9 studies for prospective members. Available through Baptist Book Stores.

The Water that Divides by Donald Bridge and David Phypers (IVP, 1977), a good discussion of the pros and cons of baptism and the open/closed membership question.

A History of the Baptists by R.G. Torbet (judson, 3rd Edition), a good general history.

Baptist Confessions of Faith by W.L. Lumpkin (Judson 1959), a more comprehensive volume.

A Baptist Manual of Polity and Practice: Revised Edition by Norman H. Maring and Winthrop S. Hudson (Judson Press, 1991).

(Also check out the web site http//www.abc-usa.org for the ABC/USA.)

*

Common Mistakes In Congregational Church Government

I celebrate congregational ecclesiology. However, what many Baptist churches claim as a Biblical ecclesiology is merely a flawed model they have practiced for a long time and have “baptized” in Christian terminology. While many churches claim to practice a New Testament model, they in fact practice a dysfunctional imitation of the real thing.

I contend that there is a real difference between legitimate congregational ecclesiology as opposed to the “crass congregationalism” many churches practice. I’d like to suggest some common problems in congregational ecclesiology:

• Ecclesiology that is more influenced by American civics than by the New Testament.

Many Baptists view ecclesiology as a sort of town-meeting democracy. “Town-meeting” ecclesiology expresses itself in endless business meetings where anyone, regardless of his or her fidelity to Christ or His church, is allowed to speak. This is not what the New Testament advocates. This form of congregationalism reflects polity more influenced by American civics than by the New Testament. In short, congregational church government is not meant to entail a monthly “free for all” under the disguise of a church business meeting. Thus, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states that each congregation “operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” Democratic processes are intended to respect the Lordship of Christ and the priesthood of believers. In contrast, “town-meeting Democracy” too frequently breaks down into chaos.

• The elevation of parliamentary procedure and church constitutions above the Bible.

Baptists believe the Bible is “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried.” Therefore, church constitutions are evaluated in light of Scripture as well. Constitutions and parliamentary guidelines are helpful and needed documentation. They supply agreed-upon ground rules for everyone involved in a local church. When used appropriately, parliamentary procedure secures the right of the majority to decide while allowing a minority to be heard. When abused, constitutions and parliamentary procedure can become methods to prevent progress. If there is a conflict between what a church constitution mandates and what the Bible requires, the Bible should win every time.

• Business meetings held too frequently.

I am convinced that churches can function effectively by having no more than two to four business meetings a year. Multiple business meetings can distract energy from Great Commission work and substitute activity for real service. A healthy question for churches with monthly business meetings to ask is this: “Is it an efficient use of our time to have a business meeting every month?” Having fewer business meetings does not preclude special meetings to address new opportunities, such as building programs or the call of a pastor.

• The failure to empower leadership.

When I say that many Baptist churches fail to empower their leaders, I am referring to more than just the pastor or staff. When a church chooses members to serve on committees or ministry teams, then that church should trust its own members in those areas of responsibility. It is not inconsistent with the New Testament for a congregation to choose leaders from within and then empower those leaders to make decisions in their realm of responsibility.

• Voting on minutia.

This follows closely on the heels of the previous criticism. A congregation functions in the healthiest manner by assigning responsibility and then getting out of the way.

• Allowing the immature members of the congregation to influence key decisions.

Many congregations are driven to the lowest common denominator of maturity by a flawed model of ecclesiology that invites people who are immature, backslidden or inactive to participate in key decisions. I refer to these situations as “the tyranny of the immature.” This is perhaps the most deadly mistake a church can make. A local church should expect a certain level of faithfulness before individuals are allowed to vote in a conference or serve in leadership.

I contend that what many churches call New Testament ecclesiology is in fact a dysfunctional copy of the real thing. In contrast to a hyper-congregational model of town-meeting democracy practiced by many churches, I submit that the New Testament does not demand or endorse such a model. A more healthy form of congregational church government includes the following minimum requirements:

• The congregation affirms God's call of the pastor.

• The congregation approves a budget.

• The congregation approves the ministry teams.

• The most mature lead. Flagrant immaturity is not left unaddressed.

This is congregational church government. The people in leadership are chosen by the church under a budget approved by the church with leadership of a pastor called by the church. I contend that this approach provides a healthier environment that is more conducive to spiritual maturity and evangelism.

*

The Biblical Basis For Congregational Church Government

Luke 22:24

Baptist Christian churches operate under the principle that the ultimate governing body for the local church is the entire congregation. Although leaders are invested with certain authority, all major decisions are to be carried before the entire church body for deliberation and decision. As Baptist Christians we pride ourselves on our dependence on the Biblical patterns for church order. Naturally, we have come to this understanding of church government, because we see this is the Biblical pattern.

THE BIBLICAL PATTERN

So, where exactly do we find this pattern in Scripture? We will briefly examine a few key passages in the New Testament which indicate that the early believers relied on the counsel of the whole church body in making significant decisions.

1. Matthew 18:15-17. We turn first to the teaching of Jesus himself.

This passage is only indirectly about church government. Its primary focus is on conflict resolution or discipline within the church. Still, we gain a key insight concerning church order implicit in Jesus’ teaching:

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, TELL IT TO THE CHURCH; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

The pattern Jesus offers for conflict resolution among “brothers (fellow believers)” is: (a) one on one meeting (v. 15); (b) meeting between disputants with trustworthy witnesses present; (c) taking grievances to the church.

In this pattern it is apparent that effort should first be made on a private and personal level, but if this fails the matter should be taken to the church. By “church” Jesus refers to the EKKLESIA, the body of “called out” believers. The congregation is a kind of “last court of appeals” that holds absolute and ultimate decision-making authority. The only avenue left after appeal to the church is expulsion of the erring brother or sister (v. 17).

2. Acts 6:1-7. In this passage the scene shifts to the emerging leadership needs of the early church as recorded in Acts. A problem arose, because some of the widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. Once again the primary focus is not church order, PER SE, but there are implicit indications of how the early believers made decisions. The passage reads:

1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 SO THE TWELVE GATHERED ALL THE DISCIPLES TOGETHER and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” 5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. 7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

The significant item here is that when confronted with an internal dispute, the leadership (at this point, the Twelve apostles; see Acts 1:12-26) “gathered all the disciples together” (v. 2).

3. Acts 15:1-35. Acts 15 describes what is called the “Jerusalem Council.” Again, the setting is conflict within the church. In this case, dissension has entered the church at Antioch over the issue of circumcision (cf. 15:1-2), and so a delegation is sent to the mother church at Jerusalem to clarify the proper stance on this issue. Acts 15:2 notes that “Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.” Who appointed this delegation? The answer seems to be that it was the church. For in 15:3, Luke notes: “The church (EKKLESIA) sent them on their way.” The church is the governing or sending authority.

Later in the narrative of Acts 15, it is noted that this delegation is received in Jerusalem “by the church and the apostles and elders” (v. 4). Though Luke notes that only “the apostles and elders met to consider this question” (v. 6), the discussion apparently takes place in the context of the entire gathered community of believers. We see this in 15:12 where it says that “the whole assembly (PAN TO PLETHOS) became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.” This seems to imply not merely the whole assembly of apostles and elders were present but the larger church as well. This is confirmed in 15:22 by the description of the response to the Antioch delegation’s report: “Then the apostles, and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch.” Note that the decision is not made by the apostles and elders alone, but also by the church.

4. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. In this passage from Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses the issue of discipline within the church. The Corinthians have tolerated a man living in sexual immorality to remain part of their fellowship. Paul even chides them for being “proud” of this arrangement. Some apparently were celebrating this as freedom from legalism. They were libertine anti-nomians. Paul, however, encourages the church to put the man out of their fellowship: “Expel the wicked man from among you” (5:13). What will interest us here, however, is Paul’s assumption that this decision will be made by the Body collectively:

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 WHEN YOU ARE ASSEMBLED IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Again, we note the stress in V. 4 that this act of discipline is to occur “when you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The “you” in this case refers to the church at Corinth in general and not to the leaders in particular. The letter is, after all, addressed “to the church of God in Corinth” (1:2). As in Matthew 18, Paul assumes that the church is the ultimate body responsible for making disciplinary decisions. We might also note that the goal of this discipline is not come from mean-spiritedness but from a collegial concern that the erring brother’s spirit be saved “on the day of the Lord” (v. 5; cf. 1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:25-26; Jude 22-23).

WHAT, THEN, IS EXPECTED OF THE LEADERS?

Although the Biblical pattern sees the congregation as the final court of appeal and ultimate governing human authority in the church, this does not mean that the leadership of the church merely does the bidding of the congregation or that it consults the congregation in every matter requiring decision. Rather, the Biblical pattern seems to be that the church invests the leadership with real governing authority. Believers are called on to obey the leaders of the Body: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb 13:7).

The leaders are, however, held to a high standard of moral and ethical excellence. The overseer is to be “above reproach” (1 Tim 3:2), the elder “blameless” (Tit 1:6), and the deacons are to be “men worthy of respect” (1 Tim 3:8). Paul admonishes Timothy: “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity” (1 Tim 4:12). The prime calling of the leadership is to serve as an example: “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith” (Heb 13:7).

These authoritative leaders function as servants. This is the model presented by Jesus himself in Luke 22:

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

As we have already seen in Matthew 18 and Acts 6, one way that the leadership expresses this servant attitude is by turning to the congregation for help in making critical decisions, like discipline and the selection of leaders themselves. The church is also called upon to examine, commission and support, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, those sent into ministry (cf. Acts 13:1-2).

The New Testament views godly leaders as a gift for the church, given to aid it in governance. We see this in 1 Cor 12:27-28:

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Paul also stresses this in Ephesians 4:7-13:

7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” 9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Leaders are uniquely placed in the Body to help it function in the most efficient and healthy way possible. Godly leaders, however, also fully recognize that they are not the head of the church. That place is filled only by Jesus Christ himself (Eph 1:10, 22; 4:15; Col 1:18; 2:10, 19). The shepherd of the church realizes that he is ultimately accountable to the Chief Shepherd, as 1 Peter 5:2-4 makes clear:

2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

The leadership of the church, therefore, is granted significant responsibility, but it is also expected to exercise authority not through coercion (“lording it over” the flock) but through loving persuasion and influence.

CONGREGATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CONTEMPORARY CHURCH

Now, how does this Biblical pattern function in the contemporary church? First, the church should be expected to consider and deliberate all major decisions in the life of the church, particularly those that affect all members of the Body. These would include the following essentials: the adoption of a confession of faith; the calling of leadership; the delegation of the responsibility of oversight of a particular ministry or function within the life of the church to a particular member or group of members; the adoption of an annual budget or major financial decisions; the maintenance of membership (this includes adding new members, releasing those who move out of the community, and discipline). The church remains the final court of appeal for those with serious grievances.

In matters of peripheral concern or in matters that the church has already reached agreement, those vested with leadership should have the freedom to serve with both authority and integrity. The Church Body invests or delegates certain responsibilities and duties to particular members of the Body. In a healthy human body, the eye is given the task of seeing and the ears of hearing. This works so naturally and organically, that it just happens. Only when the Body become unhealthy and a particular member fails to perform to satisfaction the task it has been given is there need for therapy and treatment of the disease.

________

Jeffrey T. Riddle

Pastor, Jefferson Park Baptist Church

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate