THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

 

How  are churches to be governed? 

This question  has occupied  a good deal of  the church's  energy  over the 2 millenia  of  her existence. Here is a brief  summary of  the development  of  various forms of church government.  

Some time ago I have written  an article on this blog site  entitled, "Why I am a Congregationalist"    which will help the reader to understand my own position  in this regard.  

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

FIRST CENTURY	Elders over a local  congregation, led by a presiding elder	Church at Jerusalem – James (Acts 12:17;15:13;21:17)
SECOND CENTURY	Ruling elder of a local congregation	Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, Tertullian The doctrine of the priesthood of believers held a central place in the first two centuries
THIRD CENTURY	Ruling elder; a mother church begins ruling over local congregations	Cyprian of Carthage The concept of  the “priesthood of all believers” changes. A priestly class emerges.
FOURTH CENTURY	The concept of an archbishop emerges. He rules over a number of churches in his territory.	Mother churches developed illustratively  at Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, Rome presiding over local churches in their area.
FIFTH CENTURY  UNTIL THE  REFORMATON	The battle  for power and control over the churches  begins : ROME in the West versus CONSTANTINOPLE in the East	The big schism of 1054 AD. The western (Roman Catholic) church under  the bishop of Rome  separated  from the eastern (Orthodox) church under the bishop of Constantinople. Both churches came increasingly under state control.
16th  CENTURY  REFORMATION ONWARDS…	The central focus of the Reformation was  rooted in the SOLA SCRIPTURA principle- the authority of the Bible over  the  authority of  the Roman  bishop. In terms of church government there was no unanimity among Protestants. GENERAL FORMS OF  CHURCH GOVERNMENT 1.       EPISCOPALIAN:led by an ‘archbishop’ : Roman Catholic, Anglican, many charismatic groups 2.       PRESBYTERIAN:  the church is led by a team of ruling elders.   3.       CONGREGATIONAL:  the church is led by a team of  qualified  elders  duly authorised by, and held accountable  to  the church gathering. Baptists generally subscribe to  this form of church government.	LUTHER’s  concept of “the godly prince” -  saw the church as under the rule of the state. CALVIN saw the state as subject to the church. ANGLICANS  saw the monarch  as head of the church; the  church was subject to the state. ANABAPTISTS / BAPTISTS disavowed the concept of a state church, promoting separation between church and state. Baptists regard the congregation as having the highest authority under the Lordship of Christ and subject to Scripture.  The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers  (see first two centuries) is re-emphasised.

Why I am a “Congregational“ Reformed Baptist

Baptists have  historically been known as  ‘congregationalists’. By this  we mean that   the  highest court of appeal on earth is  the  “ekklesia of God”  - the congregation or church of God,led by her  elders,  and they  together, under the headship of her ascended  Lord.  

Muddying the waters …

I wish I could  present you with a clear apologia  for  being a congregational  Baptist. I can’t, because congregationalism itself  is subject to weaknesses, since congregations  are after all constituted by redeemed sinners. 

To make matters even worse, congregational Baptist churches   have sometimes been invaded by non- regenerate  members since the  door into church membership had  not been guarded. This has been the case in  churches  where members were  received  through  an emotional, ‘decisionistic’   form of evangelism,  together with  a  shallow  theology of repentance  and a  lack of insistence upon a thorough discipleship. So when goats begin to rule the church, congregationalism becomes a curse and a nightmare!  

Notwithstanding the  fact  that  congregationalism  as a form of church government  has its own  set of critical challenges,  I  believe  in congregationalism, and I am committed  to this form of church government.   

Clarifying  Congregationalism…

I know that some Reformed Baptists  have  sometimes  struggled with congregationalism because,

(i)  They have had an experience of ungodly congregationalism. I personally   have experienced the worst kind of congregationalism in the early years of my ministry, and there are still shades  of it from time to time, when the congregation makes bad, prayer-less  and   naïve decisions, overruling their  elders.  Nevertheless,  I believe in, and encourage  congregationalism! 

(ii)   They  are very often influenced by  their evangelical Presbyterian brothers, whose theology they admire, and whose  style of church government  they  find   appealing, because it  eliminates  the  pains  of slow and clumsy congregationalism. In fact, one might argue that  some Baptists are  are  “Baptist Presbyterians“, and they would be Presbyterians, if it were not for their  sound views  on believer’s baptism! I also know that some godly  Presbyterian  church elderships  are far more congregational in practice  than they  would care to admit!

Rule by the elders  in terms of  the ‘buck-stops –here‘ - decision- making process in the church   admittedly  appears to be preferable  to the  often clumsy congregational  meeting. 
It appears  to  simplify  the decision making process simply because less people are involved, but I would  argue  that this  does ultimately not help the church to mature, nor does it help to exhibit the level  of congregational life that our Lord truly desires!  Pastor – teachers  and the elders  of the church exist  to  equip  the congregation to become mature. To this end the apostle Paul writes  that God gave  gifts  to  “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ…”  (Eph. 4:12,13). 

Children only mature as they are given responsibility, and I would argue that this is the strength of true congregationalism. I would argue that congregationalism  fosters spiritual  responsibility,  which is  the goal of mature membership!

In Defense of  Congregational   Church Government

1. The congregation  under Christ  is  led  by a servant leadership/ eldership  rather than ruling eldership. Jesus frequently addressed  this subject, particularly  when His disciples wanted to set themselves as  little popes in the kingdom of God (e.g.Mark 10:35-45; Luke 22:26; John 13:2-17). Servant Leadership   is  focused on helping the congregation, and leading the congregation into responsible decision making. I would argue that this even  includes allowing the congregation to make mistakes (obviously - of a non heretical  nature), after which the elders  through patient instruction should lead the congregation  to repentance  and a more biblical  view of things. I have had such experiences in our church,  where I believed  that the church had been wrong in a congregational decision. But since the elders and I had been outvoted, we needed to teach the church patiently (cf. 2 Tim. 2:24), only to see the church  conform  to the elders wisdom  after a while. 

2.  The Congregation  is the final court of appeal on earth (Matt. 18:18ff): The context of this statement made by our Lord Jesus Christ is the church.  “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be  bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven“. 

Whilst elders do undoubtedly have a vital role to play  in guiding the church in responsible decision making and teaching, they must  in the end defer to the church. This means that the church meeting  (the congregation) may override the authority  of the elders. The elders are not invested  with infallibility, nor are they endued with absolute authority. They are always accountable to the church. 

3.  Congregationalism  takes seriously the nature of the church.  Each member, born again and baptized    is not only important in the church, but is also able  to engage in responsible churchmanship, since the Holy Spirit dwells  in  each true believer. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit has gifted each believer in order to make a vital and necessary  contribution to the  ministry and well-being of the whole church. This does not only mean that members can meaningfully contribute to the ministry of the church in terms of their gifts, but also in terms of their corporate wisdom, prayer  and counsel.  Let me repeat something that I have said earlier: Congregational  church government  presupposes  that  our members are converted! Historic Baptist ecclesiology is founded  upon   the principle of  a  regenerate membership.  

The question is this: Will we trust our members  to participate in responsible decision making?   Obviously, if  Baptist churches   have a large group of  passive, ‘non –resident’, unfruitful, even  non-regenerate members,   congregationalism becomes chaotic and risky.   But if the gates to church membership are guarded through making sure  (as much as is humanly possible) that  our members have entered by the narrow gate,  and if our members have been   discipled  into the obedience of the faith, then we have no reason to fear congregationalism. Someone may ask then, "What about  young believers who are not mature, and  who still have many worldly ideas floating in their minds?"  I  believe that the mature leadership of the elders who lead the church in responsible decision- making plus the maturity of the older members will have a wholesome influence  over the younger members. 

4.   Congregationalism  most honours  the Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is committed to His whole church, and if every member does their part and is involved in the ministry of the church according to their spiritual gifts, and if each member participates in the congregation (including in the  decision making processes  involved in a General Meeting of the church),  it also follows that Christ is most glorified in such a church.

5.  Church discipline is congregational. In many  churches church discipline is actually exclusively exercised  by elders, when in fact  both the Lord Jesus, and  the apostle  Paul taught  that the church  was the final court of appeal in the matter of church discipline  (Matt.18: 15-18 ; 1 Cor. 5: 1-13). I find that  this fact affirms  our view of congregational church government. In our church we practice church (congregational) discipline, after  all attempts at restoring a person  by the means prescribed in Matt 18:15ff have failed.

Conclusion 

I am not saying that congregationalism is a perfect system. Neither am I saying that it is easy. It isn’t ! Ask me … I have been ‘at it’  for 29 years at the time of writing. But I would still argue that congregational church  government would be   the  logical outcome for a  a maturing congregation.

With tongue in cheek I would therefore  suggest that when a church is planted, it might  initially be governed episcopally. Let the bishop rule over his young flock while they are babies. 
Then as time passes, add other elders, and widen  the  decision-making process to a body of ruling elders, and call yourself  ‘Presbyterian Baptists’, if you like! 
But since  we  are aiming for maturity (our achievable goal according to Ephesians 4:1-16),  we should  strive for congregational church government with a serving eldership.