In terms of church polity, I've held the same position for years: that churches should be congregationally ruled and elder led. Recently, however, my understanding of church polity has been feeling a bit unstable. Why?
In preparing to preach a sermon on congregational rule, I realized something from Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible say that it is the congregation which is to rule the church. This is what I have said - that it is the congregation, not the pastors, who are to rule the church. But I am beginning to think that I must stand corrected. Why? Because though the Bible never speaks of the congregation "ruling" the church, the Bible clearly speaks of "elder rule":
"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor..." (1 Tim. 5:17)
I was readding Hammett's "Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches" last night, and heard him assert over and over agan that pastors are not to be the rulers of the church (i.e., p.157). But how does he square that with the verse above?
So here is where I think I'm heading: I still fully believe in congregationalism, though I don't feel comfortable using the term "congregational rule". I believe the congregation's role is to be involved in the choosing of elders and deacons, commissioning of missionaries, and church discipline. But, as we see in all of the Scriptures supporting congregationalism (MT 18:15-20, Acts 6:3, 13:2-3, 15:22, 1 Cor. 5:2, 2 Cor. 2:6), all of this is still done under the authority and guidance of the elders.
In the end, I think I'm falling somewhere between Dever/Piper's congregational rule and Mahaney/MacArthur's absolute elder rule. I'm supposed to preach on this in about 6 weeks, so I would definitely like to hear you thoughts on this!
As pastors, one passage that we need to constantly keep in mind is 1 Peter 5:1-4. Whatever authority we've been given, we must receive it humble and with fear and trembling, "not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One big difference between elder-led and elder-rule is who choses the elders.
In elder-rule, the other elders simply select the other elders (what if there are no elders? Do they for that moment become congregational?)
In elder-led, the congregation affirms/choses/votes on the elders. Their vote of approval is the congregation giving the elder the right to "rule." And, they can vote him out.
Congregationalism doesn't mean that the congregation votes on every issue. It means they, under the headship of Christ, have the authority to select their leaders.
Once they select their leaders, they should be willing to follow their "rule."
Just some random thoughts.
What do the elder-rule guys do with the "voting" passages?
Justin C.
As far as I know, there is only one clear "voting" passage in the N.T. - 2 Corinthians 2:6. I agree with you that this passage teaches congregational authority since it is the congregation (under the guidance of the pastors) that votes to remove a member. In truth, my position has only modified slightly. What I'm trying to deal with is how we are to understand the verse which learly says that elders "rule" (which could be translated as "govern"). Any ideas about this?
And also, as far as churches choosing their own pastors, what is the N.T. precedent? Is it not the Apostles and their successors appointing elders in all the churches? But again, from Acts 6, for example, we congregational consent required in the appointing of leaders. So I'm just aiming for the right balance as we work on our constitution.
Post a Comment