I’ve also read 2 Corinthians. 2 Corinthians 2 clearly says “the majority” issued a punishment to the offending brother. Now, here’s my question: If the majority does not do this, is there any real correction of the brother? Or, if the majority refuse to affirm their love for the brother and receive him back into fellowship, is he a part of the membership? Of course not. So, then, the congregation exercises a responsibility over the membership that is inescapable. We see the same thing in Matthew 18:17, Titus 3:10 and elsewhere.

If we were to take your logic to its conclusion and adopt your posture of looking only to the precepts and not also the examples of the scripture, then we would not know what an elders’ meeting looks like or be able to say much about how elders should shepherd.

Suffice it to say, we disagree. Let’s leave it there.

T-

Did you hear the one about the Congregationalist, the Pope, and a Rabbi? All 3 duck into a bar to avoid the rain and decide to order drinks and wait the storm out.

The Pope and the Rabbi order wine, but the Congregationalist orders a milk in order to show these two men what obedience to the Bible really looks like.

It works great! The Pope and the Rabbi are amazed at their friend with the white moustache and ask him, “Why did you order the milk? We are in a bar, you know!?”

To which the Congregationalist answered, “Have you not read the Scripture, “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk?”

“And that’s why I abstain from wine and drink milk.”

When the Pope and Rabbi heard his answer they told him that Isaiah also spoke of free wine and not just free milk. Licking the white off his lips, the Congregationalist immediately turned to the bartender and asked, “Got any Welch’s grape juice back there?”

As I said, congregationalism is entirely based on Scripture inferences, like the one you raised. But 2 Cor. 2:6 wasn’t written to teach congregationalism. In distinction there are entire paragraphs of Scripture written to teach eldership (1 Tim. 5:17-25, Titus 1:5-9, for example).

There isn’t anything said about a collectivized majority action in 2 Cor. 2:6, or a majority vote. It would be just as fair to claim that a majority of the people in the church closed a door in the man’s face, issued individual restraining orders against him, or that a majority stayed away from his meat business. The idea of a group action, or a vote, is all personal conjecture.

But there is no need for conjecture since Paul tells us exactly what the majority of people did. They gave the man a “punishment” (v. 6). The word translated “punishment” occurs 30 times in the New Testament and always refers to a spoken reproof. It never refers to a written reproof, nor a “concrete penalty” such as a vote for expulsion, but only and always brotherly correction of a verbal nature. The meaning of 2 Corinthians 2:6 then is straightforward. The majority of the congregation gave the man a spoken reproof of brotherly correction. This reproof reflects their obedience to the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 18:17a, specifically, the third step of church discipline.

If we were truly sensitive to 2 Cor. 2:6 we would ask the question, “What about the minority of the church? What disobedience did they evidence, and how should that disobedience have been handled?”

There is simply no way to reconcile Congregationalism and Scripture. Have you not read Hebrews 13:17? Congregationalism sanctifies occasional disobedience to the Holy Spirit. It’s not only OK to overrule the elders at times, congregationalism calls it biblical.

Just like drinking milk and not wine.

Thanks for stopping by and adding to the conversation, even making it entertaining!

Just a couple quick points:

1. I think we see voting at least implied in 2 Cor. 2:6. And even if we argue against voting in that passage, what is undeniable is that the congregation (“the many,” “the majority,” etc.) took the final action in this membership matter/discipline. So, that’s just one instance in favor of some congregational government, imo.

2. Even if we can find instances of voting in the NT church, that does not render the church a democracy. The church is decidedly not a democracy. Christ is the only Head of the church and He rules by His word. But, we must not then with knee-jerk speed acts as if the congregation has no responsibility in the administration and implementation of church life, particularly on matters of membership, calling leaders, and even neutral matters like approving budgets. It seems abundantly clear to me from Matthew 18:17 and 1 Cor. 5 and 2 Cor. 2 that the congregation effectively acts and rules in matters of membership.

And I think we can be healthy congregationalists without bending the knee to the baals of American-styled democracy. In fact, the only way to be a congregationalist is one believes it best represents the precepts and patterns of the Scripture.

T-

Did you hear the one about the Congregationalist who wanted to repair his broken marriage by patterning it after his church? Both he and his wife got a vote. Every time he asked his wife “do we have a motion” she brightened up and said, “Absolutely! I have joy, sadness, guilt and passion, you sensitive man, you!”

Turns out what she really needed was tender-hearted shepherding by someone who would love her where she was. She really just needed servant leadership.

Your friend with the accent seems right. As we compare the forms of church governance we cannot help but see that they really do follow the form of the world’s governance in vogue at the time. Episcopalianism still follows the Roman system of governance while connectionalism resemble the feudal systems of lords and serfs. Congregationalism follows a more consistent democracy.

We live at a point in church history where voting rights are, well, “rights.” Yet there is only one instance in the Bible of voting and it resulted in murder (Acts 26:10). No matter. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

As discomforting as it is, the NT church established by Christ and the apostles had no voting and no Robert’s rules of order. We see no budgets passed and no governing privilege extended to the congregation. For many of us children of democracy this is awful!

So we set up and manage our churches with the fallen systems of the world in unbelief. As a result they quickly conform themselves to the world and live on for a season in the strength of the flesh. And if somebody claims our way is unbiblical, well, we will provide disconnected Scripture inferences as proof for our system.

Scripture actually teaches a single pattern of church governance that is abundantly clear and it is called eldership. The major texts are Acts 20:17ff, Acts 21:18ff, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Pet. 5:1-4 and many other minor ones.

Eldership is also the neglected step child of polities. When the multiple view books come out on polity they combine eldership with congregationalism – which is only a variation of congregationalism.

So here we live with our beloved congregationalism. It feels so right. Church meetings climax in a vote feel sacred – a “holy consensus” as Paige Patterson would say. And even though there is no example or command in Scripture to do these things we right books and blogs advocating them.

And then we turn around and chide the infant Baptists for claiming their practice is biblical when they have neither command nor precedent. Time to turn the mirror on ourselves.