I’m sometimes chided by folks for being a congregationalist. Yeah, I know. Can you believe it? But it’s true. Some folks really don’t believe the Bible teaches congregationalism, or at least models it in some places. Some won’t even admit the Bible teaches anything about church governance.

I have one friend, a Baptist committed to elder rule (yeah, I know, right?), who ridiculed congregationalism as deriving more from American one-man-one-vote civics.  This brother, not an American, makes a good case that some forms of polity basically mimic the political polity of the countries in which they were developed.  He does it with a great accent, too.  Accents, of course,  makes everything sound more intelligent.  And in some cases, there appears to be some truth to his claim.

But can we really equate congregationalism with a kind of pooled individualism?

I’m sure that’s what it amounts to in far too many churches.  I’m sure that for many earnest Christians, American civics lessons have somehow blurred together with “that one sermon the pastor preached a while back on church government” to result in a fair amount of politicking and vote-getting in the church.

But, congregationalism is not the same as pooled individualism.  A good pastor friend and faithful shepherd brought this home to me recently.  He described a church meeting where the vast majority of the congregation wanted to follow the leadership while four members held the body hostage by insisting they have “all the information” the leaders had.  They announced their inability to support the leadership or vote without all the data.  In God’s goodness, the congregation carried on with their support of the leaders, making important decisions along the way.

Were these person’s practicing congregationalism in their insistence to know all that everyone else knew before making a decision?  No.  They were, as my friend put it, being individualists.  They weren’t considering the congregation at all.  They weren’t trusting the rest of the body or the leadership.  They were trusting themselves.  And they were announcing as much on the floor of a members’ meeting.  There was a kind of egoism at work that obscured their view of the whole.

Now, let me hasten to say that sometimes the vast minority sees a thing more clearly than the whole.  That’s why we want to work against group think.  And no one should side with the church or the leaders when it’s clear the church and/or leaders are heading into sin.  But if we’re in a congregational context, we should remind ourselves of a few important truths lest we become individualists pretending to be congregationalists:

1.  Our overarching aim is to build up the body of Christ, not merely to represent our own interests;

2.  It’s necessary that we trust our leaders and show them proper respect for their work’s sake rather than hinder them like some opposition party slowing “the other side’s” agenda;

3.  Those around us also have the Holy Spirit, prayer, the Bible, and gifts of discernment, so it’s probably humble and wise of us to assume they could be correct or acting wisely and we could be wrong or acting foolishly;

4.  Sometimes congregations get it wrong, and that’s okay if we’re not talking about sin and serious doctrinal error; and,

5.  If it is a matter of sin or false teaching, the congregation and each member in it has the responsibility and right to graciously and resolutely defend the truth and work for restoration.

These are a few things for us rowdy congregationalists to remember lest we find ourselves on the receiving end of Titus 3:10 warnings and rebuke.

After posting some comments on a church battle resulting in the resignation of its pastor, pointing out that as a congregationalist I believe the church has the right to call its pastors, a couple brothers asked me to defend myself. “How could I be a congregationalist?!” No, actually, they didn’t say that. They were very kind and raised good questions. It’s Friday and I’m a little punchy

So, in my last post I gave this reason for being a congregationalist: Texts like Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5; and 2 Corinthians 2:6 all teach or imply that the congregation acts decisively in the exercise of church discipline. So, in those matters, I am a congregationalist.

A second reason I am a congregationalist involves matters of doctrinal error in the teaching ministry of the church. In short, it seems to me that the pattern for corrective response in doctrinal error involves the congregation finally censoring or removing the erring teacher(s) and safeguarding the gospel.

I have in mind a couple of passages.

First, when Paul writes to the churches of Galatia, he does not address a monarchical bishop or a council of rulers/elders. He writes “to the churches in Galatia.” We know the apostle was not shy about addressing leaders or individuals personally where he feels they have some obligation or responsibility (1 & 2 Timothy; Titus; and Philemon). So, his writing to the churches as a whole rather than individual leaders or groups of leaders is significant. And what he tells those congregations is that they are to judge what is taught against what they received, rejecting even angels and pronouncing anathema on gospel-distorting false teachers (Gal. 1:8-9). The congregation has a doctrinal and gospel trust it is to protect. We see a very similar responsibility in Ezekiel 34:17-23 where the Lord promises to judge the strong sheep for abusing the weak sheep when unfaithful shepherds were ruling (vv. 1-16). Congregational response and action are all the more important precisely when the elders or leadership of the church is in error. In other words, if there is no congregational backstop for erring leaders, then there is no safeguard for the truth. It is the church that is the pillar and ground of the truth–not the rulers alone or even primarily. May the Lord make us effective teachers so we have churches prepared to contend for the truth.

The second passage I have in mind is Titus 3:9-11. Here is a letter addressed personally to Titus, and his first order of business is to appoint elders as a previous comment noted. Titus is obviously in a church-planting or missionary situation where he is apparently the sole elder. Duly constituting elders is critical in his context. When Paul says in 3:9-11 that Titus should warn a divisive person up to two times then have nothing to do with him, do we think that only Titus is to avoid the divisive person? That’s very improbable since the nature of the sin (schism or dividing the body) is undeniably corporate. For the discipline to work in the case of false teachers and the instruction to have any sense, it must be the congregation that is finally putting away these controversialists.

We see the same thing in Romans 16:17–”I urge you, brothers, watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.” The dividers of the body are able to work their splits “by smooth talk and flattery” that “deceive the minds of naive people” (v. 18). So the entire congregation must pull away from such people.

The church–the entire body of Christ–guards against false teaching, especially when the teaching comes from within or from one or more of her leaders. This isn’t merely a pragmatic argument to limit elder rule. It’s what the Scripture holds out as the weighted balance against abuses in leadership and false teaching.