A few weeks ago, someone I know posted a graphic on Facebook of a pyramid that was designed to depict his understanding of how a local church should be structured.

The graphic was a pyramid that placed “elders” above the “congregation,” seeking to show that elders have more authority than the congregants. (If you want to see the pyramid graphic, you can click here).

I jumped into the Facebook comments. I said, “I think this pyramid graphic is flawed because there are situations in which the congregation, collectively, has authority over the elders.” I instantly got pushback from several people.

One person responded to me, “There should never be a moment when the congregation has authority over the elders.” I vehemently disagreed. Me and this gentlemen debated a bit. It was poignant, but charitable. A few other people jumped in too.

I realized that many of the people in the conversation were simply unaware of the Biblical passages that allude to the types of situations where the congregation should have genuine authority.

To be clear, there are many faithful believers that disagree with me on how to structure the decision-making processes within a local church. The debate around the ideal model of church government is not a matter of heresy or orthodoxy. But I do think this is an important issue, with some very real tangible implications, therefore this topic is worthy of discussion and debate.

 

The Biblical Tension

The Bible makes very clear that local churches ought to have qualified leaders (Act. 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Ti. 1:6-9; 1 Pt. 5:1-3). And church congregants ought to submit to those church leaders and obey their teachings (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:7, 17; 1 Pt. 5:5).

With these sentiments in mind, it makes sense why some church leaders would assume that they have full authority to call all the shots in every situation.

However, we also see in the New Testament that the congregation ought to have a voice in decision-making (herein this article we’ll examine the Biblical passages that assert this sentiment).

The form of church government that gives congregants within a local church influence over various church matters and decisions is often referred to as congregationalism. As we’ll see in this article, the Biblical authors seem to be endorsing a form of congregationalism.

So, we have a tension!

Pastor and author Jonathan Leeman puts it this way:

“We have explicit texts on both sides: the Bible tells congregations to submit to their leaders, and the Bible says the final judicial court of appeal is the whole congregation. The challenge of church polity has always been putting these two streams of texts together.”
—Jonathan Leeman, Don’t Fire Your Church Members, pg. 100

 

Classic Tenants of Congregationalism

Over the last 400+ years, congregationalism has been very popular amongst Protestants, especially Baptists. Traditionally, there have been three primary tenants of congregationalism embraced by Protestants:

1) Autonomy of the local church:
Each local church is self-governing, free to make its own decisions, independent of oversight from denominational hierarchy or ecclesiastical authorities; this idea of local church self-governance is in opposition to the episcopal form of church government embraced by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Methodists; in the episcopal church government structure an external ecclesiastical authority has power over the local churches.

2) Power-sharing structures:
Some of the decision-making power within the local church is delegated to the official church leaders while some other elements of decision-making power and authority is delegated to the church congregants;

3) Democratic elements:
Congregants of the local church collaborate or utilize some democratic process to collectively speak into certain decisions or to adjudicate specific church matters when called upon; the congregation does not have authority over every issue, but the Bible gives us instructions about which types of decisions should be delegated to the congregation.

 

The Modern Problem

Historically speaking, proponents of congregationalism staunchly embraced all three of the above-mentioned tenants. However, some modern Christian leaders have championed the autonomy of the local church (the first key tenant of congregationalism), while simultaneously minimizing any power-sharing structures and democratic elements within the church.

Such modern leaders have advocated for local church self-governance, but have structured their churches where all authority is consolidated in the church leaders, with the congregation having little (or zero) real decision-making powers. This form of church government has sometimes been called the elder-rule model.

The elder-ruled model has certainly existed within some parts of Protestantism since the Reformation era, but it exploded in popularity in the United States in the mid-1900s, and remains popular today in modern evangelical circles, especially in non-denominational churches.

This big shift was largely fueled by the fundamentalist movement (early 1900s), the advent of the evangelical parachurch movement (1940s through 1960s), the expansion of non-denominationalism (1950s through 1970s), and the charismatic renewal movement (1960s through 1970s).

As we’ll see herein, the elder-ruled model seems to improperly strip congregants of the authority granted to the congregation by Jesus Christ himself.

 

God’s Words

Okay, I’ve stated herein that we were going to examine the Scriptures, so let’s do that now. Let’s see what the Biblical authors say about congregational authority.

 

MATTHEW 16

[Jesus said]: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
—Matthew 16:18–19

Jesus seems to be giving the “keys of the kingdom” to Peter (v. 16:19a), and Jesus tells him now that these “keys” have been given, he has the power to “bind” and “loose“… “whatever [they] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever [they] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (v. 16:19b).

Catholics often use this passage to argue that the authority was specifically given to Peter, anachronistically referring to Peter as the first pope. However, two chapters later, we see that the specific entity that happens to have the authority to “bind” and “loose” is the entire gathering of the church, not merely Peter himself (vv. 18:18–19).

So, it appears, that back in chapter 16, when Jesus gave the apostle Peter the “keys to the kingdom,” Jesus was not merely giving the authority to Peter, but giving the authority to the entire church, and Peter just happened to be the church’s representative in that moment.

Many years later, Peter refers to himself as an “fellow elder” (1 Pt. 5:1), putting himself on an equal plane with all other church elders; clearly, Peter did not see himself as being above all other church leaders.

It seems that the local congregation is the locus of governing authority; authority was not necessarily totally consolidated in the apostles. The church seems to have the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever decisions that the church happens to make seem to echo into the supernatural realm.

 

MATTHEW 18

[Jesus said]: 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.
—Matthew 18:15-17

Jesus explicitly gives the congregation authority over matters of church discipline, not the elders. In instances of church discipline, the congregation (collectively) has more authority than the elders.

One-on-One Confrontation

In the text, Jesus instructs the believers that if someone sins against us, we ought to go to directly to that person first, seeking to deal with the matter amicably one-on-one (v. 18:15). If the person listens, that’s great.

However, if the person does not listen or does not humbly receive the rebuke, then we ought go back to the person again, but the second time we ought to bring someone else along with us (v. 18:16). The hope is that the other person can help adjudicate the matter. Notice, there’s no mention of the church leaders in this text.

Some proponents of the elder-ruled model have claimed that Jesus is implying that those “witnesses” brought into the mix must be church leaders. But there’s nothing in the text that even implies that. This is an individual Christian, dealing with another individual Christian.

The Escalation to the Ekklesia

Jesus then says, “If he refuses to listen… tell it to the church” (v. 18:17). The Greek word in this context that we translate as “church” herein this text is the Greek word ἐκκλησία (transliterated “ekklesia”), which explicitly refers to the entire assembly of believers. There is absolutely no way around this text.

The church leaders aren’t ever mentioned. The elders are not called upon. It’s obvious, this issue is to go before the entire congregation for adjudication or mediation—the entire group of assembled believers.

The person who has sinned or has wronged his brother, is then to be examined by the church. And if he refuses to acknowledge the wrong and repent, then the congregation is then expected to speak into the process.

Later, Jesus explicitly says that there is to be a consequence if the person refuses to “listen” to the church (v. 17a)—the church, it seems, is expected to speak up, to admonish, challenge, and encourage this person being examined, and the person is expected to genuinely listen to their admonishments.

The Church’s Response

Jesus explicitly gives instructions if the sinner refuses to “listen to the church” he is then to be treated as a “Gentile and a tax collector” (v. 17b). Remember, this is a Jewish first century context, where Gentiles were seen as outsiders and tax collectors were seen as traitors.

Jesus is saying, in essence, that if someone refuses to repent of their sin, even after the whole assembled church has spoken into the process, then the church is expected to treat that person either as an outsider or traitor.

To be clear, Jesus is not giving us permission to be mean or unkind or unnecessarily punitive towards the person. Jesus is not seeking to inspire hatred or animosity or vengeance, instead, Jesus wants to inspire evangelism and gospel-centered rebuke.

If someone claims to be a believer, but we see them as an outsiders (not genuinely born again), then we ought to lovingly help that person see how their external behavior is demonstrating that there’s a lack of genuine faith in their hearts.

We cannot see their hearts, we don’t know the true state of their soul. But if a person’s behavior is not in-line with their profession of faith, it’s appropriate for us to highlight that for them. Jesus teaches us that we will know each other by our fruit (Mt. 7:15-20) and he commands us to examine one another righteously (Jn. 7:24). The apostle Paul tells us that we ought to righteously judge those who claim to be within the faith (1 Cor. 5:12).

In Matthew 18, when Jesus is telling us to treat the unrepentant person as a Gentile, he’s not saying that we ought to ostracize the person, but instead we ought to assume they are not believers. And what do we do with unbelievers? Well, we challenge them to believe! We invite them into the family of God.

Based on their refusal to repent, we ought to see them as being outside of the family of God, therefore they are on a trajectory toward hell. We then ought to gently and graciously, yet boldly and urgently, exhort these people to repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ, wholeheartedly.

No Mention of Church Leaders

In this text, there is no mention of leaders. Some people have attempted to make the argument that when Jesus says “take it to the church” that he’s referring to “church leaders.” But the text does not say that. With all due respect, to make this about church leaders, you’d need to flat-out ignore the clear teachings of Jesus herein.

But could leaders be involved? Yes, of course.

There would not necessarily be anything wrong with church leaders being involved in this process. Church elders are to shepherd the flock (1 Pt. 5:2-4; Act. 20:26–28), and church members should feel free to invite their elders into any situation of their lives. This could be especially true if the offended believer needs extra guidance or specialized counsel through the process or if there is some highly sensitive situation brewing.

If a congregant wants the elders involved, to help shepherd the process, that seems appropriate. But Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 18 do not delegate power in the situation to the church leaders. The leaders must be careful not to usurp the congregant’s responsibility to confront their fellow believer.

In addition, the actual logistics of bringing the situation before the church is almost always going to need some leadership involvement. The church is God’s household, and the elders are to be the primary managers of that household (1 Tim. 3:4-5).

Shepherding and managing are essential roles that the elders provide for the church. So, the actual process of bringing this issue before the church will need to be managed by the church leaders. And the more sensitive an issue becomes, the more shepherding will likely be needed from the leaders as the situation unfolds. But we must be careful that in our desire for elders to lead well that we don’t unintentionally strip the congregation of the proper authority Jesus has given them.

Jesus has specifically highlighted the whole congregation—the whole assembly—as having the rightful authority to speak into these matters. Elders do not have ultimate unilateral authority in matters of church discipline.

How to Implement This

The implementation of this process is a matter of prudence. There is not one specific uniformed pathway that every church should take. The way in which we apply the principles and instructions of Matthew 18 may vary from context to context, and that’s fine.

Church leaders should use their wisdom to create a framework where church members can graciously and humbly confront one another, as needed.

 

ACTS 6

And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.”
—Acts 6:2-3

An issue arises in the early church, and through this conflict we’re given a model for who is primarily responsible to select the deacons; herein we see that the congregation is responsible to select leaders.

In Acts 6, we see that the church was administrating a feeding program for widows. A dispute arises and it eventually becomes obvious that the primary spiritual leaders of the church need to delegate the management of this feeding program.

So, what do they do? Do the leaders unilaterally select new leaders? No. It’s the congregation that will select the new leaders of the feeding program. The primary leaders—the apostles—make it clear that the continued management of the feeding program would distract them from their primary job, preaching the word.

So the apostles gathered the “full number of the disciples” (v. 6:2) and said to them, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” Then the apostles challenged the congregants to select men to take over the management of the feeding program (v. 6:3).

The apostles commissioned the church members to make the nominations for who would become leaders and they committed to “appoint [those men] to this duty” of managing the feeding program (v. 6:3b). These leaders from Acts 6 are often referred to as proto-deacons; they’re the first church leaders appointed to take over a specific ministry which is, in essence, what the office of deacon is designed to do (1 Tim. 3:10, 13).

The key insight from this passage is that the elders are shepherding and leading the nomination process, but it’s actually the congregation itself making the final decision as to who would be appointed to leadership.

 

PATTERN IN ACTS

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers… while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
—Acts 13:1-3

In addition to Acts 6, throughout the book of Acts, we see local congregations playing a significant role in decision-making. The appointment and commissioning of missionaries was a church-wide task. Barnabas and Paul were sent out by the church in Antioch (vv. 13:1-3) and then, later, Paul and Silas were sent out by the same church (v. 15:40).

In addition, the appointment and sending of delegates to represent the churches at councils or at major events was also, clearly, a church-wide task (v. 11:22; 15:2-3). Furthermore, the deliberations and decisions of the first church council was also a congregational action (v. 15:22; cf. 16:4).

These are all huge moments in the life of the early church, and we do not typically see the apostles acting unilaterally; instead, we see much deference being given to the local church’s role and influence in the process. This is the pattern of the early church.

 

GREETING IN GALATIANS

To the churches of Galatia.
—Galatians 1:2b

The book of Galatians was written by the apostle Paul and seemingly sent it to the churches throughout the province of Galatia. It is not written to the elders or leaders of those churches.

As we read through Galatians, we see that there are Christian influencers and/or leaders being allowed to preach bad doctrine. So, the apostle Paul expects the congregations to do something about it. The apostle Paul expects the members and congregants of those Galatian congregations to hold the leaders accountable–they must not allow such bad teaching to continue–they must act to protect the gospel.

If the leaders are teaching wrongly, it’s the responsibility of the congregants to step in and guard the gospel. So, if the congregation is to never have any authority over the elders (as one person said to me on Facebook), then I must ask, “How do we expect the congregants to go about obeying the commands of the book of Galatians in the instances when the elders are potentially preaching twisted doctrines?”

 

GREETING IN 1 CORINTHIANS

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together.
—1 Corinthians 1:2a

Similar to what we’ve seen with Galatians, Paul’s first epistle to the church in Corinth is explicitly for all the individual members of that church.

As we read through 1 Corinthians, we pick up on the fact that there are loads of errors in the life of the church, both doctrinal and practical. But this epistle is written, quite explicitly, to the members of that church, those who are “sanctified in Christ Jesus.” The letter is not written to the elders of those churches, but to the entire congregation.

It appears that the apostle Paul is expecting that the entire congregation participate in the process of cleaning up the messes that had been inflicting the church.

If Paul believed in the elder-rule model, wouldn’t he just call upon the leaders of the church to correct the errors? Or wouldn’t he, at least, mention the leaders at some point? Paul isn’t someone who is afraid to mention bad leaders by name—he does so elsewhere—so the omission in these letters is striking.

 

1 CORINTHIANS 5

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
—1 Corinthians 5:1-2

In 1 Corinthians 5, we see that there’s apparently a man in the church who is having an affair with his stepmother, and the apostle Paul says that behavior would not even be tolerated by the pagans, so he challenges the whole church, broadly, not just the elders, to sanction and discipline this man.

Paul says that this man is to be removed from the church when they are “assembled” (v. 5:4). Why would they need to wait until the entire church is assembled? If the apostle Paul believed in an elder-ruled model, couldn’t the elders just do immediately? Why would they need to be gathered together? The most logical explanation is that this needed to be a congregational action?

Furthermore, later in the chapter Paul tells the church to “judge” other believers and remove the evil man (vv. 12–13). In these later verses, all of the imperatives are in the plural. He is explicitly addressing the whole congregation. Similar to what we saw in Matthew 18, church discipline in the hands of the membership, not only the leaders.

Theologian Rolland McCune summarizes this passage in this way:

“Paul directs the local church at Corinth to care for its difficulties. No committee was formed and no pressure was brought to bear either by other churches, apostles, or ministerial executives. The decision of the local church on the matter was final. There is no higher court of appeal or body of jurisdiction; the local church’s judgment is final.”
—Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, pg. 236

 

1 CORINTHIANS 16

[Paul said]: When I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.
—1 Corinthians 16:3-4

The Christians in the church of Corinth wanted to send a financial gift to the church in Jerusalem. It appears that the representatives to be selected, to be a part of the team that would carry the gift to Jerusalem, needed to be selected by the church; the representatives needed to be “accredit[ed] by letter” (v. 16:3).

How did this play-out precisely? We don’t know. Clearly there was some collaborative process. The members of the church are collectively determining who they would officially appoint and “accredit” to bring the gift to Jerusalem.

Also, while it’s not stated explicitly in the text, I cannot help but get the sense that the decision to send money to Jerusalem, itself, was also likely a decision that resulted from some collaborative discussion or collective decision-making process.

 

2 CORINTHIANS 2

For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough.
—2 Corinthians 2:6

In 2 Corinthians 2, we see that a man who had been disciplined is now potentially being restored to the church. While we cannot be sure that this is the same man from 1 Corinthians 5, it seems likely that it is indeed the same man.

This man was previously excommunicated, but he’s now being brought back into the fold. Paul clearly exhorts the entire church to manage this restoration process well and to forgive this man (vv. 2:5–11).

Paul says that the punishment had been set forth by “the majority” (v. 2:6). The literal Greek phrase would mean the “majority decided” or the “majority issued” the punishment.

Does Paul say that this discipline was leveled at this man merely by the church leaders? No, Paul specifically says that this discipline was done by the majority of the church, at some point in the past. And now, this man is potentially being brought back into the fold, by the same “majority” that had previously removed him.

This provokes the question: How did Paul know it was the majority of the church? There’s only one reasonable explanation, someone counted who was in agreement.

Maybe they didn’t do an official ballot, like we would do in our contemporary democratic context. But clearly there was some sort of collaborative process or collaborative discussion or a vote. When it comes to excommunication or receiving members back after they’ve repented, it seems that Paul is putting this in the hands of the congregation.

Then, later in the text, Paul says, “Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive” (v. 10). Paul is simply asserting that if they were willing to receive him back, then that’s sufficient. There’s no need for the apostle to continue to hold this against this particular man. There’s no need for Paul to continue to expect more discipline upon this man, if the church is willing to receive him back.

The final authority to adjudicate this man’s situation seems to be in hands of the local church, not in the hands of the apostle Paul and not in the hands of the local church leaders. Church discipline seems to be an instance where the congregation, collectively, has more authority than the elders.

 

2 CORINTHIANS 8

With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel. And not only that, but he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us as we carry out this act of grace that is being ministered by us, for the glory of the Lord himself and to show our good will.
—2 Corinthians 8:18–19

In 2 Cor. 8:18, there’s this unnamed man alluded to by Paul, a guy who was apparently well-known by many Christians; “famous among all the churches for his preaching” (v. 8:18). We see that this man had been “appointed” by a group of churches to join Paul in ministry. Paul did not unilaterally make the decision for this man to enter gospel ministry.

Later in the text, this famous preacher is presumably a part of the “brothers” that the apostle Paul says “are messengers of the churches” (v. 8:23).

It seems to me that groups of churches have the authority to determine who should be sent out on missionary endeavors, and those missionaries that are being sent out ought to see themselves as “messengers” from those local churches.

 

2 TIMOTHY 4

For 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.
—2 Timothy 4:3

In this letter to his protege, the apostle Paul tells Timothy that the individual congregants are partially at fault for the false teaching that’s happening in Timothy’s region.

When Paul is describing the potential of false teachers in the church, he particularly alludes to those professing Christians who are willing to endorse and listen to these false teachers—those people who will seek to “accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (2 Tim. 4:3b).

Paul clearly holds the listeners accountable for the false teaching, in addition to the false teachers themselves being blamed—there are members of the church who are seemingly culpable. They are held as guilty for tolerating false teaching.

It appears that the apostle Paul believes that the ordinary members of the congregation are (at least partially) responsible to keep preachers in check.

 

Human Nature Says Congregationalism is Wise

Okay, now that we’ve examined what the Scriptures say, I think it’s also wise to consider human nature.

We should not primarily build our theology and philosophy on what we observe in the world. However, the principles of natural theology provoke us to examine human nature and consider what structures are ideal for humans.

This is a matter of prudence. It would simply be unwise for us to totally ignore that which we observe in humans. Our understanding of human nature ought to inform (at least in part) how we structure our local churches.

As we examine human history and anthropology, we see that too much power consolidated in leaders almost always goes bad.

Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I actually disagree with Lincoln on this point. I don’t think giving a person power corrupts them, as much as it exposes what is already within them.

I believe that human beings are sinful and totally depraved. We all have a tendency to fail and flop in unimaginable and profoundly detrimental ways. It is simply too dangerous to give one singular pastor (or a small group of pastors) all of the authority in a local church. That structure has a high probability of going sideways.

To protect the church from bad leaders, the congregation ought to have some authority and ability to keep leadership in check. It’s wise for every church to have their processes clearly spelled out.

But this is not merely to protect the church from bad leaders. Even good leaders sin and have unhealthy propensities. Allowing for power-sharing, between church leaders and church congregants, can help minimize the impact of those unhealthy propensities.

Congregationalism is not necessarily only about firing bad church leaders or removing them from office, it’s also about cultivating an environment within our local church where we can all benefit from the very best we have to offer one another.

 

Congregationalism is Not Democracy

Congregationalism has democratic elements baked into it, as we’ve seen in some of these passages, designed to allow the whole congregation to speak into certain major decisions or to adjudicate certain matters; however, congregationalism is not necessarily congruent with modern democracy.

In most modern democratic nations, leaders are elected to represent the people, and the people feel the freedom to make demands of those leaders. If the leaders refuse to do as the people say, then the people will threaten to vote the leader out of office. This is not how any church should function–not ever!

Also, embracing congregationalism does not mean that every church member ought to get a say in every single detail or be involved in every church decision. That would be far too chaotic and cumbersome.

The Bible does not assert that churches must vote on every decision, but the congregation should have some influence in certain arenas of the life of the church.

Precisely how this all shakes out within a church is going to vary from church to church—it’s not going to be uniformed—and that’s okay.

 

Conclusion

Elders have certain responsibilities within the church and the members of the local congregation have certain responsibilities. Congregants are called to submit to the elders and the elders are called to lead the congregants well, caring for their souls.

The elders are the primary leaders of the local church, tasked with managing the church’s operations and teaching the word of God to God’s people. The congregation, on the other hand, should have a significant voice in matters related to:

• Church discipline
• Appointment of deacons and representatives
• Appointing and commissioning of missionaries
• Holding leaders accountable for bad teaching

The precise mechanics of these vary. Leadership is the local church is a tad bit complex, but we can trust that God will help us as we seek to apply his wisdom and follow his commands.

 

Recommended Resources

• Church Membership (Jonathan Leeman)
• Church Discipline (Jonathan Leeman)
• Don’t Fire Your Church Members (Jonathan Leeman)
• Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (John Hammett)
• Church Elders (Jeramie Rinne)
• Biblical Eldership (Alexander Strauch)
• Deacons (Matt Smethurst)