Sermon Cloud

© Eric M Schumacher – Preached February 11, 2007 at Northbrook Baptist Church, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

A group of sheep is a flock. A group of geese is a gaggle. A group of cows is a herd. A group of dogs is a pack.

It doesn’t matter how specifically they are arranged—whether they are in a disordered group or in a straight line or in a circle. If you have a bunch of sheep, you have a flock. If you have a bunch of geese, you have a gaggle. If you have a bunch of cows, you have a herd. If you have a bunch of dogs, you have a pack.

It is that way with a church? If a gaggle is nothing more than a group of geese, is a church really nothing more than a gathering of Christians? It doesn’t matter how they organize themselves. If you get enough Christians together in one place, isn’t that a church? Or, could it be that God has said something in his word about how Christians are to organize themselves as a local church?

If you are anything like I was when I was growing up in church, the organization of the church and the government of the local church were not something that I thought much about. Our church was organized and governed one way. The Catholic across the spare lot, the Methodist and Presbyterian churches on Main Street, the Baptist church near my home and the Friends church out in the country were all organized and governed in different ways.

Even once I was in college and began to take my faith more seriously, the organization and government of the local church didn’t seem to be something that was terribly important. It wasn’t addressed in Scripture (was it?).

Even if church organization and government is addressed in the Bible, it couldn’t be important enough to study! After all, there are billions of people in the world heading to hell without knowledge of a Savior! How can we justify “wasting time” talking about how to organize and govern a local church! How could such issues be “kingdom issues”!? These issues must be a waste of time.

Is that what this serious of sermons on the local church is? A distraction? A waste of time? As useful as polishing the brass and rearranging the deck furniture on the sinking Titanic!

How the local church is to be governed is not something that most Christians have spent much time thinking about or studying. In the book Who Runs the Church?, Sam Waldron offers this observation:

Like the Ephesian disciples of John the Baptist who told Paul, “We have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:2), many evangelicals tell us by their conduct that they have not even heard whether there is a biblical church government. Without shame, many act as if they were allowed to order “the household of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim 3:15) according to their human traditions, personal tastes, and natural reason.

We should ask ourselves a question: Do we really believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would leave his most treasured possession in creation, the one institution he said he would build, without any instruction for how we are to structure ourselves and operate? Would Christ really leave his Bride to the mercy of “human traditions, personal tastes, and natural reason”?

Granted, there is much about the church that the New Testament does not address, which, in some cases, gives us remarkable freedom. And, yes, traditions can be the distilled wisdom of previous generations, useful to teach us. And, yes, there are areas of church life which require us to applied sanctified wisdom to figure out what is best.

All that considered, I believe that a careful study of the New Testament will reveal that we are given some specifics for how the church is to be organized and governed, by both command and example. And, I firmly believe that how the church is to be governed is not “rearranging the deck furniture on a sinking ship.” I believe that this is an issue of great importance, especially in terms of spreading the Gospel.

Government
When we speak of church “government,” we are addressing issues of authority. Where does authority rest in the local church? Who has the final say in issues of doctrine and practice? Is it a King, a Pope, a bishop, a president or a pastor? The deacon board? The elder board? A presbytery, a synod, a conference, an association, or a convention? Who is in charge? Who runs the church?

Christ
To begin with, we must note: The government of the church is ultimately a monarchy. Jesus Christ has full and final authority over his church.

Scripture
We must also note that: The Lord Jesus Christ has spoken with authority through the writings of his apostles. Therefore, the church is ultimately ruled by Jesus Christ through the instruction of the apostles, as deposited in the Word of God, the Bible. Ultimately, we are not allowed to be ruled by personal tastes and preferences, denominational traditions or “how it has always been.” Ultimately, we must be ruled by the Word of God and not by reason or church tradition.

Most would agree with that statement, at least in principal, if not practice. What this boils down to is the question—who decides what the Word says the church should do? When push comes to shove in the church, what earthly human authority gets to make the decisions for the local church? (I say that as a figure of speech, hopefully we do not literally push and shove!)

Congregationalism
Baptists, which we are at Northbrook, have historically held to a position called “congregationalism.” The Baptist Faith and Message (the statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention) states that “a New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of believers…” The local congregation of believers is “autonomous.” “Autonomous” means “self-governing” and “independent.”

This does not mean that we get to make up our own rules. This statement goes on to say that we operate “under the Lordship of Christ,” which means we submit to the Word of God.

What this does mean is that under the Lordship of Christ, the local congregation is sovereign over its own affairs. This means that no association or conference, no convention or denomination, no other local church, nor even its ‘mother church’ has authority to tell a local church what it must do or believe. There is no hierarchy above the local church.

Simply put, a congregationalist holds that the local congregation is the final human authority in the life of the local church. Mark Dever offers this helpful explanation:

Congregationalism is simply the understanding that the last and final court of appeal in a matter of the life of the local church is not the bishop of Rome or Constantinople or Washington. It is not some international body, or some national Assembly, Conference or Convention. It is not the president of a denomination or the chairman of a board of trustees. It is not a regional synod or ministerial association. It is not a group of elders inside the local church, or the pastor. The last and final court of appeal in the matter of the life of the local church is, and should be, the local congregation itself.[1]

Biblical Defense
Of course, all I have done so far is to define and describe congregationalism using a quotes from a few men and a statement of faith. It ultimately does not matter what men say, if the Word of God does not say the same. So, we must ask and answer the question:

“To Whom Does the New Testament Give the Final (Human) Authority in the Life of the Local Church?”
I believe that the New Testament defends congregationalism, giving the final (human) authority to the local congregation, the membership of the local church.

Priesthood of all believers -
It should not surprise us that some authority is invested in every believer when he or she is gathered together with the body as a whole. After all, the New Testament calls believers “a holy and royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5, 9). We are told that Jesus Christ has made believers “priests to his God and Father” (Rev 1:6) who “shall reign on the earth” (Rev 5:10) as “priests of God and of Christ” (Rev 20:6).

The priesthood of all believes places great dignity upon the believer. Such dignity, that Sam Waldron writes, “The dignity of every believer is such a pervasive emphasis of the New Testament that we would be surprised if their consent was not required in the matters discussed above. Even, therefore, without the explicit passages cited above, we might have good ground to suppose that the consent of the church was necessary in matters of the church’s membership and officers.”[2]

We should be careful about looking down our noses with haughty suspicion at the masses of "unseminaried," common Christians, for these are those whom Christ the Lord has made “kings and priests unto God!”

Letters to Churches
Before looking at specific passages of Scripture, we would do well to note that the majority of the New Testament letters are written to local congregations. While “elders” and “deacons” are addressed along with the church (in Phillipians), we have no letter specifically written to an “elder board” or a “deacon board.” We do, however, have many letters written to local congregations.

It is also worth mentioning that there is not even a passing reference to pastors or deacons in either First or Second Corinthians, though both certainly existed at the time. It would seem that, in such a troubled congregation, Paul’s first priority would be to get the pastors to “set things straight.” Yet, again and again, in addressing problem after problem, Paul does not appeal to the pastor, but to the congregation.

Areas of Congregational Authority–
The New Testament gives the final (human) authority to the congregation in at least five areas:

1) Doctrine.
Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to maintain the purity of the church’s doctrine. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians (1:8-9), he writes:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Paul calls upon, not the pastors, but the congregation to judge angelic and apostolic preaching! The congregation is responsible for judging the message that is preached and rejecting the preacher if his message denies the Gospel that Paul preached.

In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul writes that the church—not the pastor—is a “pillar and buttress of truth.” The church is responsible for upholding and protecting the truth of the Gospel.

This does not mean that there is no place for leaders to teach, rebuke and correct. Pastors are called upon in Scripture to do so. Nevertheless, in the end, final responsibility is placed on the congregation to maintain the purity of the Gospel.

2) Discipline

Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to discipline unrepentant members.
Mark Dever offers this observation of the passages dealing with discipline:

Notice to whom one finally appeals in such situations. What court has the final word? It is not a bishop, a pope, or a presbytery; it is not an assembly, a synod, a convention, or a conference. It is not even a pastor or board of elders, a board of deacons or a church committee. It is, quite simply, the church—that is, the assembly of those individual believers who are the church.[3]

Concerning how to address a sinning brother, our Lord taught:

Matthew 18:15-20 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 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. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

Notice that, in this passage, the “church”—not a board of pastors—is the final court of appeals. The church has the final say.

Now, I have heard people say that using this passage to defend congregationalism is “unconvincing.” They claim that all this passage is teaching is that the congregation lends their voice the disciplinary decisions of the elders. It is not enough to simply claim something is “unconvincing.” We must actually deal with the text. And, the view that this is the congregation “lending their voice” does not stand up under such examination.

First, we should note that the church is “speaking.” Jesus says, “if he refuses to listen even to the church.” Jesus speaks of the church as the final court of appeal with a sense of seriousness that one would not listen “even” to the church. Christ does not say, “If he refuses to listen to the pastors,” but “even to the church.” In fact, “elders” are not even mentioned in this verse! (It is odd that some find this passage “unconvincing” for a defense of congregationalism and opt for a “congregation supporting the elders” view when elder are not even mentioned! This seems to be more convenient than exegetical. The burden rests on them to show where elders even enter into the process.)

Likewise, when the Apostle Paul applies our Lord’s instruction to the Corinthian church, we see no mention of pastors/elders in the disciplinary process, but only an appeal to the congregation to take authoritative action.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul addresses the situation of a man in unrepentant sexual immorality. Like Jesus, Paul no where addresses church leaders. Instead, he appeals to the assembly of believers.

In verse 2, Paul rebukes the congregation for not acting and calls upon them to remove the sinner.

In verses 4-5, Paul calls upon the church—when they are gathered together—to deliver the man to Satan for destruction in hopes of repentance.

In verse 7, Paul tells the congregation to cleanse out the old leaven.

In verse 11, Paul tells the congregation not to association with those who claim to be Christians but live in overt, unrepentant sin.

In verses 12-13, Paul tells the congregation to judge those inside the church and to purge the evil person from amongst them.

This is the consistent witness of New Testament texts dealing with discipline. This is not to say that pastors play no part in the process or that we are not allowed to involve them. Of course, there is wisdom in involving those that God has called to watch over us! Nevertheless, we cannot miss the fact that the final appeal and responsibility for dealing with unrepentant sin is given to the church, not its leaders.

3) Disputes
Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to settle disputes between believers.
In 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, we find that believers were apparently taking each other to court over disagreements. Paul writes:

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

Paul is flabbergasted that believers would allow unbelievers to judge their disputes. The saints are going to judge the world and angels—therefore they can certainly judge trivial, earthly cases between believers! (Again, we must be careful before looking down our noses at and distrusting the congregation of those who will judge the world!) The final responsibility for settling disputes in the church is given to the church.

4) Membership
Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to decide who is a member of the church.
In 2 Corinthians 2:6-8, we read:

For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.

Paul is apparently addressing a situation in which the congregation has administered discipline against a man. Now, Paul is encouraging them to welcome him back into their fellowship.

It was “the majority” that punished him. Church discipline does not and cannot happen without the church! Likewise, it is not the Apostle Paul’s decision, only his counsel, to welcome the man back. The congregation is the one responsible for allowing a person membership into their fellowship.

We learn here, that the congregation has the final say over who is in and out of the church.

5) Election/Removal of Officers, Missionaries, Congregational Representatives
Final responsibility is placed on the congregation to choose its own officers, missionaries and congregational representatives.

In Acts 6, a dispute arises amongst the widows regarding the daily distribution of food. To resolve the problem, the Apostles offer their wisdom to the congregation, telling them to pick out seven men to handle the distribution.

This counsel “pleased the whole gathering” and they—the assembled church—chose the first seven deacons. The church was responsible for choosing its deacons.

Likewise, in 2 Timothy 4:2-3 Paul writes, “the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions…” This is an example of believers exercising their authority in a wrong way. Nevertheless, in this passage and elsewhere (Galatians 1), Paul holds the congregation final responsible for the teachers it selects. The church is responsible for choosing its preachers.

In the book of Acts, in chapters 11 and 15, we see that it is the congregation that chooses its missionaries and send them out.

In 1 Corinthians 16, the church is responsible for accrediting those who will carry their offering to Jerusalem.

Final responsibility is place on the congregation to choose its own officers, missionaries and representatives. While there certainly are Scripture qualifications that must be followed, the congregation is responsible for heeding this and making a decision.

All these responsibilities have been given to the church. We are not allowed to slouch in our duties or to shove them off on someone else.

Clarifications
Lest we misunderstand and misapply this teaching, we need to clarify what this does not mean. Congregationalism does not mean that:
…the church is infallible in its decisions!
Congregationalism does not mean that whatever the church votes to do is right. Christ governs us through His word. A unanimous vote that goes against the Word is one-hundred percent wrong, all the time.

Congregationalism obviously does not mean that the church will make no mistakes or never abuse their authority! Obviously, in 2 Timothy 4:3 the congregation selects wrong leaders! We are an imperfect church and—we will be until our Lord returns. Therefore, we should strive to be holy and biblical.

…the church is a radical democracy, popular sovereignty (or committee of the whole).
Congregationalism does not mean that the church assembles for a congregational vote on every decision that ever has to be made.

One of the things that scares people about congregationalism is the prospect of 5-hour business meetings in which the congregation macro-manages every minute aspect of the body’s life! Obviously, we are not required to have a vote for which passage is to be preached on next and how Sunday School classes should do their prayer requests.

It simply means that the final court of appeals, especially when faith or practice are in dispute, is the congregation.

…there are no leaders within the church.
There are real leaders in the church with real authority. Hebrews 13:17 says plainly, “Obey your leaders and submit to them…” There are leaders in the church that are to be “obeyed.” This, admittedly, is a point of tension. We must work out how pastoral authority and congregational authority relate. I hope to address this further when we look at the office of the pastor in a sermon to come later.

For now, I will say that it seems that the congregation is responsible for discerning who God has called and gifted to be its pastor. When a congregation calls its pastors, it is their recognition and affirmation that God has given them this person as a leader. If that is sincere, this calls for them to give their trust to this leader. They are still responsible to hold that leadership in check, should the pastor conflict with the doctrine of the Bible. Yet, the congregation is called upon to follow the lead of the one they recognize God has given them as a leader.

...there is no cooperation with other local churches in associations, conventions, etc.
When we say that the church is “independent,” we do not mean that the local church acts as if it were alone in the world.

We recognize that there are some things that can be done better when we cooperate with other churches. We recognize that it is often useful to pool our resources to work together for the sake of missions and evangelism. So, we can cooperate in the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention.

We see examples of this in the New Testament, such as 2 Corinthians 8:19, where it is the “churches” (plural) that appoint Titus to travel with Paul.

We recognize that it is useful to pool our resources for education. So we cooperate with other believers to fund seminaries and Christian schools.

We recognize that it is most useful to pool our resources to do disaster relief. So we cooperate with the Disaster Relief arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, rather than being “Lone Rangers” trying to do it all ourselves. Titus to travel with Paul

Implications
When we look at the areas which God has entrusted to the congregation, I think it shows why studying what the Bible has to say about church government is important.

God has entrusted to the congregation—the assembled church—the purity of the church and the purity of the Gospel. We, as a body, are responsible to watch over each other. We, as a body, are responsible for watching over the doctrine that is taught.

The church does not exist merely for your good. It does exist for your good. But, it exists for more than that. The church exists to defend and to display the Glory of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When the church is compromised, it puts the Gospel at risk. When the church fails to carry out its responsibilities, it puts the Gospel at risk. This means that:

1) The purity of the church must be maintained.
If the church is responsible for defending and displaying the Glory of God in the Gospel, then it is very important that the church consist of people who are actually born again and give evidence of loving Christ. This is why it is important to have formal membership—we must know who can and cannot participate in these important responsibilities.

A church roll that is full of unrepentant and unregenerate persons constitutes a compromised church. A comprised church will comprise the Gospel.

2) You must actively participate as an informed member of the church!
You cannot be a lazy member of the church. You, Christian, are responsible, together with the assembled body—for watching over the Gospel and each other.

This means that you must be present and alert, participating in the life of the body. This means that you must be studying the Bible so that you can recognize error when it appears.

The church exists to defend and to display the Glory of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Do you love God’s glory in the gospel of Jesus Christ? If so, will you demonstrate it by being an present and active, informed and caring member of the church?

-------------------------------------------------------
[1] A Display of God’s Glory, p 32-33.
[2] Who Runs the Church?
[3] Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 221